Faculty Committees 2004/2005

Minutes of the Meeting of May 16, 2005

Amended July 8, 2005

The thirty-seventh meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, May 16, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The meeting began with the Committee congratulating President Marx on the success of the ceremony held on May 12 in New York for the purpose of awarding honorary degrees to Nelson Mandela and Graça Machel. During the event, Mr. Mandela delivered an address on the subject of increasing access to higher education for those of modest means. Several members who had attended the ceremony commented on how moved they had been by it. When asked about the logistics of the College’s new Mandela Scholars program, which was announced by the President at the ceremony, President Marx said that he was pleased that the Nelson Mandela Foundation would work with Amherst to identify stellar students from South Africa and Mozambique who might qualify for admission to the College. If these students were admitted and qualified for aid, and the President stressed that Amherst’s admission and financial aid criteria would not be compromised, they could receive full scholarships to the College. The Committee felt that bringing Nelson Mandela scholars to campus was consistent with the College’s goal of increasing global understanding and maintaining a diverse community.

The President informed the members about some issues raised by the Faculty at a productive meeting held on May 10 with the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP), the Dean of the Faculty, and the tenure-track Faculty. He noted that the assistant professors argued that resources should be increased so that science departments, particularly physics and biology, could develop and offer more courses designed for those who are not majoring in science. Discussion also focused on the difficulties, given their teaching obligations, that the assistant professors have had in securing opportunities to team-teach. The President said that he recognizes this concern and told the members that he has asked the Dean to evaluate whether a fund could be established to support per-course hires, who, if necessary, could cover essential courses. Amherst faculty members could then be freed to participate in team-teaching. The assistant professors also noted that the College would benefit from having a teaching center—in particular, from being video-taped in the classroom and receiving feedback, from learning about new technologies, and from training in pedagogy. President Marx and Dean Call said that they plan to investigate whether the Amherst Faculty might make use of services provided by the teaching center at the University of Massachusetts. In addition, they will consult with Mr. Schilling, the College’s new Director of Information Technology, to develop additional IT programs supporting pedagogy. The assistant professors also stressed the need for evaluation of the teaching of senior faculty members, which would serve to calibrate the senior Faculty’s reading of the tenure-track Faculty’s teaching evaluations. Discussion also focused on the idea of having teachers of First-Year Seminars serve as first-year advisors. The President noted his willingness to explore this option after assessing changes that have already been made to the advising system for the first-year class entering in 2005-2006. Some participants suggested that they would like the College to have weekly gatherings for Faculty to learn about the ongoing work of their colleagues. The President said that he would consider providing funding for weekly lunches at Lewis-Sebring, during which members of the Faculty could give informal presentations about their scholarly endeavors. He said that he hoped that the tenure-track Faculty would be willing to solicit speakers and organize a calendar for the series for next year. Finally, the President noted that some interest had been expressed in building a new facility for faculty members, with the intent of encouraging informal interaction among colleagues by providing space especially for this purpose and refreshments. Some members of the Committee wondered whether existing spaces might fill this need. Though it was acknowledged that the Lewis-Sebring lobby could be used, some members said that this space had drawbacks for this particular purpose. The Dean noted that coffee, tea and pastry are provided in the lobby every weekday morning (8:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.) during the academic year, but few members of the Faculty attend. The President said that he would consider an experiment with weekly faculty gatherings to see if there is interest in this form of interaction. Professor Cheney suggested that Friday afternoons might be a good time. It was suggested that the gatherings might be housed in the Mead Art Museum, the Lewis-Sebring lobby, or the Russian Studies Center.

The Committee turned to a personnel matter.

Discussion turned to the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP)’s exploration of the issue of two-hour, once-a-week seminars that are being taught at the College. Dean Call informed the members that the CEP contacted all faculty members who had proposed new courses this spring meeting in this format, and that all of these colleagues responded with their rationale for wanting to teach within this time frame. A range of reviews was received, and the CEP plans to continue its conversation about this issue in the fall. Some members expressed the view that the minimum period for once-a-week seminars should be 150 minutes.

The Committee next approved unanimously the nominees for the Woods-Travis Prize and the Hitchcock Fellowship.

The members reviewed the theses and transcripts of sixteen students (the theses of two members of the Class of 2004E recommended for a summa cum laude degree had been reviewed previously) recommended by their departments or interdisciplinary programs for a summa cum laude degree and having a minimum overall grade point average in the top 25 percent of their class. After a discussion of each thesis and the individual departmental statement describing the thesis’s strengths, the members voted unanimously to forward to the Faculty all sixteen candidates for the degree summa cum laude, pending calculation of the final GPA. Reflecting on the theses as a group, members of the Committee said that the quality of the work was excellent.

The Dean shared with the members materials, which were prepared by Gerald Mager, the Registrar, regarding the current criteria for honors, historical information about honors at Amherst, and statistics relating to the awarding of honors at the College over a number of years. The members were pleased that it appears that the addition of the G.P.A. requirement for magna degrees in 2004 has not reduced the inclination of students to write theses. Some members raised concern about the number of students who were recommended, based on the thesis, by their department to graduate magna cum laude, but who did not meet the G.P.A. requirement, and who, thus, will graduate cum. Other members noted that the new policy is having the desired effect of injecting more rigor into the honors process. The Committee agreed that, once Mr. Mager had received the final grades and made his final calculations for this year, he should be asked to update the honors statistics. This information would then be appended to the minutes of the Committee of Six meeting of May 16.

Dean Call informed the members that the Departments of Fine Arts, Music, and Theater and Dance had responded to the proposed procedures for early selection of outside reviewers for candidates for tenure who are creative or performing artists. The three departments expressed divergent views. The Department of Fine Arts expressed concern about the early selection of outside reviewers and preferred that there be an exhibition on campus of the candidate’s work during his or her sixth year at the College. The Department of Music felt that the decision about whether to choose reviewers early so that they could attend live performances or to include CD-ROMs and musical scores in the tenure dossier should be done on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Theater and Dance was pleased with the procedures as proposed. The Committee agreed that next year’s Committee of Six should consider whether the same policy regarding the early selection of reviewers should apply to all candidates who are creative or performing artists. The Dean asked the members whether he should draft language that would provide more flexibility in the process. The Committee agreed he should and suggested that the Dean share this revised language with the relevant departments, and that next year’s Committee should return to this issue.

Dean Call noted that Professor Tawa and Dean Griffiths have gathered some preliminary structural information about the positions of lecturers, senior lecturers, and visitors who teach at the College, but that further work needs to be done. Professor Tawa said that she and Dean Griffiths are interested in consulting individually with departments who use lecturers. The Committee noted that the College’s reliance on non-regular faculty members, who sometimes advise students and who carry a significant portion of the curriculum in some departments, is a significant issue. It was agreed that next year’s Committee of Six should consider this matter.

The Dean shared with the members a draft of revisions to the description in the Faculty Handbook (IV., S., m., p. 94) of the Faculty Lecture Committee. The current members of that committee had suggested the changes in response to a request from the Dean’s office to review the language as part of the process of revising the Faculty Handbook. The Committee approved the following changes:

m. The Faculty Lecture Committee. The Faculty Lecture Committee is composed of three members, each serving initially for two years. The Chair is typically chosen from among the returning members of the Committee and serves for a third year. In May 1967, the Committee of Six voted that the change in membership of the Lecture Committee should take place in January rather than in June, with the understanding that the old committee would continue to serve as social hosts for the spring lecture series, but that the new committee chosen in January of the year would begin to plan immediately the fall series for the following academic year. The Lecture Committee thus constitutes for the faculty members a two and one-half year obligation: a half-year of planning followed by three semesters of full operation and a final semester of social obligations. This Committee arranges the program of College lectures, including that those provided by specially endowed lecture funds.

The Lucius Root Eastman Fund is also administered by the Lecture Committee. The purpose of the Lucius Root Eastman Fund is to stimulate student interest in contemporary problems of social and economic group relationships, and in the role of government along with labor, management, religious, racial and other organizations in fostering improved relations within a framework of democratic objectives and institutions.

The income from the Fund has been used to bring to the campus participants in College courses and seminars, for off-campus projects which permit student observation of or participation in activities outside of Amherst related to the work of the classroom, and for projects designed to stimulate faculty activities related to the objects of the Fund.

A special committee, consisting of the President, a Trustee, and a member of the Faculty, is responsible for the use of the income from this Fund, but the actual administration is in the hands of the Lecture Committee.

The administration of other designated lecture funds is also overseen by the Faculty Lecture Committee.

The President and the Dean thanked the members for their fine work this year.

The meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of May 9, 2005

Amended May 16, 2005

The thirty-sixth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The President announced, with sadness, that Onawumi Jean Moss, Associate Dean of Students, had been injured in an automobile accident and was recovering in the hospital. The members expressed their concern and asked the President to send Dean Moss their best wishes.

The Dean next made a series of announcements. He informed the members that Mr. Peter Schilling has been named Director of Information Technology. Mr. Schilling is currently Associate Provost for Academic Affairs and Director of Information Technology at Wagner College. He has held positions at Bowdoin College, where he was Director of the Educational Technology Center (1999-2003), and at the College Board, where he was the first publisher of The College Board Online (1996-1999). Mr. Schilling earned a Ph.D. in English from Columbia University and a B.A., also in English, from Georgetown University. Dean Call expressed his thanks to the Director of Information Technology Search Committee—Heidi L. Gilpin, Sherre L. Harrington, Joseph N. Kushick, John W. Manly, Marian F. Matheson, Marlene Merzbach, Jessica W. Reyes, Raj Borsellino ’08, Stephen Scriber ’06, Spencer S. Robins ’08, and the Committee’s Chair, Lyle McGeoch.

The Dean distributed honors theses, recommendations, and transcripts to the members. A discussion ensued concerning whether the new honors system, which was implemented in 2003-2004, is having an effect on the distribution of honors and the number of students writing theses at the College. Dean Call said that he would ask the Registrar, Gerald Mager, to do some research on this issue and to gather statistics—for the College as a whole and segmented by the three divisions of the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities—for the past five years. The Dean agreed to report back at the next meeting, while noting that senior grades would not be received until the afternoon of May 16. Some data for this year would probably not be available by the time the Committee next met, he said.

The Dean informed the members that Professor Griffiths has agreed to continue as the Associate Dean of the Faculty for a term of two years. Professors Hunt and Damon noted that the Departments of Women’s and Gender Studies and Classics will be affected by his absence from full-time teaching, and the Dean noted that visitors will cover some of the courses that Professor Griffiths has taught. Professor Hunt said that small departments are affected greatly in such circumstances, and that the Dean should ensure that their needs are satisfied. The members agreed that Professor Griffiths should serve a two-year term, but that, in the future, the position should be regularized and that the term should be for three years for purposes of continuity and ease of hiring long-term visitors.

The Committee reviewed several committee assignments.

Discussion turned to the meeting of the Faculty of May 3. Some members commented that the intent of the motion regarding notice of termination for those who have been denied tenure seemed to be misinterpreted, perhaps because the Committee failed to explain it clearly. Many colleagues seemed to infer that the motion was designed to allow for spreading out the workload of the Committee of Six. In fact, it was intended to give the Committee the flexibility, by alleviating the eighteen-months time constraint, to request and secure additional letters from outside reviewers, should they be needed. Faculty members who are denied tenure would still have a one-year terminal appointment. The Dean pointed out that the Committee prefers to work with departments to select additional reviewers, and that the reviewers must have time to read and reflect, and that all of this requires additional time. Some members said that, perhaps, there should be a date in January by which all tenure decisions would be announced. Some members pointed out that the current language of the Faculty Handbook already provides the needed flexibility, and that it is only a matter of tradition that decisions are announced in December. One member noted, though, that traditions are not to be taken lightly. The Handbook (III, 4., g., p. 30) states: “If the decision is negative, the College will endeavor to give the faculty member eighteen months’ notice before final termination. This will entail an additional one-year terminal appointment.” The members agreed that the Committee of Six should meet with tenure-track faculty members in the fall of 2005-2006 to discuss this issue and should then decide whether to revise the motion before bringing it back for discussion with the full Faculty.

The Committee turned to the subject of procedures for promotion to full professor. The members agreed that the language in the Faculty Handbook (III, G., p. 32) does not provide the Committee of Six with sufficient guidance for making promotion decisions and discussed whether an ad hoc committee should be formed to study the promotion system at the College. Some members argued that an ad hoc committee would be able to explore this matter in depth by interviewing departments and holding meetings with small groups of faculty members and by securing comparative data, although it was agreed that comparative data alone should not drive the consideration of this issue at Amherst. After receiving feedback and gathering information, such a committee could produce a coherent set of recommendations for the promotion system. The members agreed that next year’s Committee of Six should appoint an ad hoc committee to study the promotion system at the College and made suggestions of colleagues who might serve on the committee.

The Dean distributed a draft, based on the Committee’s discussion at its last meeting, of revised criteria that might be used to select proposals for funding through the President’s Initiative Fund (PIF). After making some refinements, the members agreed on the following language:

President’s Initiative Fund for Interdisciplinary Curricular Projects (PIF)

President Anthony W. Marx established the President’s Initiative Fund for Interdisciplinary Curricular Projects (PIF) in 2004 to provide support for projects that focus on themes or problems that can best be understood and addressed through interdisciplinary efforts and to inform the College’s deliberations about new curricular programs and scholarship. It is the goal of the initiative to involve as many faculty members as possible; individuals should, as a rule, focus their efforts on one project. Preference is given to projects that involve faculty members from multiple disciplines. Proposals from interdisciplinary departments are welcome.

Projects should hold some promise for producing viable enhancements to the education that Amherst provides. PIF groups should explore areas that would be new to the curriculum or that are underrepresented in it, although projects need not be conceived as permanent additions to the College’s offerings. Undertakings that do not add to current offerings or that focus exclusively on lectures or other events might more appropriately be accomplished through existing structures and/or other College funding sources.

Projects that complement ideas or proposals emerging from the report of the Special Committee on the Amherst Education, which are currently being considered by the Committee on Academic Priorities and the Committee on Educational Policy, are welcome and might help the College move forward in these areas. For example, PIF projects might encourage curricular innovation tied to global understanding or experiential learning. Projects that bridge the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences are especially encouraged.

Proposals may include an array of activities. For example, for developing courses, support may be given for research and travel or to cover the costs of pedagogical materials. Funds may be used to invite visiting scholars to campus to lecture or consult for a day, a week, or a month, or to teach Amherst courses. Visitors may also be used to cover teaching in established fields, freeing College faculty members to teach PIF-related courses. PIF visitors may be brought to Amherst to teach up to two courses without involving a department. However, if visitors return to the College after their first teaching period to offer one or more courses, departmental involvement will be required. PIF visitors should, whenever possible, be affiliated with an Amherst department, and faculty members making proposals for visitors will find it advantageous to work with departments. If a group making a proposal cannot find a department to house a visitor, the Dean of the Faculty may designate a host department.

Ten copies of the proposal, which should be addressed to the President, are due in his office by November 1, 2005. All proposals are reviewed by the Committee of Six, which offers its recommendations to the President. Proposals should include up to ten pages of text, a brief CV of no more than three pages for every member of the PIF group, a budget, and clear provisions for assessing and reporting on the success of the project. Funding for up to three years may be requested. If funding for a multi-year project is approved, proposals to renew support must be submitted annually. Proposals for the first year of a project may be broad; proposals for renewal should be more refined and focused. Requests for continuing support must be accompanied by an interim report assessing the progress of the project. Requests for up to $50,000 per year, not including any related requests for visiting faculty appointments, will be considered.

The Dean recommended that the review of policies regarding attendance and voting at faculty meetings be done by next year’s Committee of Six, as there was not enough time remaining to address this issue thoroughly during this academic year.

The Committee next reviewed and approved the agenda for the Commencement Faculty Meeting to be held on May 19.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of May 2, 2005

Amended May 11, 2005

The thirty-fifth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, May 2, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The meeting began with the President informing the members that he had asked Greg Call to continue as the Dean of the Faculty. President Marx expressed his gratitude to Dean Call for his fine work and excellent counsel over the past two years and said that he was mindful that the position of the Dean of the Faculty is a demanding and difficult one. He praised the search committee—Professors Leah Hewitt, Jerry Himmelstein, Kannan (Jagu) Jagannathan, Helen Leung, Susan Niditch, and Andrew Parker—for its comprehensive and assiduous efforts. The Committee applauded. The Dean said that he was honored to continue as the Dean of the Faculty.

President Marx told the members that he had invited Wayne Meisel, President of The Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, to come to Amherst on May 13 to consult with the College community about experiential and service learning. The Bonner Foundation supports service learning and scholarships for low-income college students through the Bonner Scholars Program. The Dean made a series of announcements. He informed the members that the College was able to offer a substantial salary increase to the Faculty this year and thanked the President, the Treasurer, and the Board for the extra allocation to the salary pool that enabled this step to be taken.

In regard to the Committee’s discussion of the College’s current level of reimbursement for staff members taking courses at other educational institutions, Dean Call reported the results of research he did on the fees charged for taking courses at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and at Greenfield Community College. The Dean suggested that the figures be shared with the Committee on Priorities and Resources (CPR) and that the CPR and the Treasurer review this issue. The members agreed.

The Committee turned briefly to committee assignments.

The Committee reviewed three course proposals forwarded from the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) and voted unanimously to send them to the Faculty for approval. The Dean noted that one course proposal, English 50, had been withdrawn.

The Committee next discussed refinements to the criteria used to select proposals for funding through the President’s Initiative Fund (PIF). It was agreed that it is desirable to involve as many faculty members as possible in the program and that, therefore, individuals should, for the most part, focus their efforts on one project. The members said that funding should be provided for projects that explore areas that would be new to the curriculum or that are underrepresented in it and for projects that would be viable at Amherst. It was agreed, however, that projects need not be conceived as permanent additions to the curriculum. The Committee also agreed that there will be less interest in projects that do not add to current College offerings or that focus exclusively on lectures or other events, since such projects might more appropriately be accomplished through existing structures and/or other College funding sources.

The President suggested that projects that may complement ideas or proposals emerging from the report of the Special Committee on the Amherst Education, which are currently being considered by the Committee on Academic Priorities and the Committee on Educational Policy, would be welcome and might help the College move forward in these areas. For example, PIF projects might encourage curricular innovation tied to global understanding or experiential learning. Professors Hunt and Dizard said that projects that bridge the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences would also be of interest. It was agreed that preference should be given to projects that involve faculty members from multiple departments, and that projects proposed by existing interdisciplinary departments are welcome. The Committee decided that proposals for the first year of a project could be broad, but that proposals for renewal should be more refined and focused. The Dean noted that the PIF was President Marx’s initiative, and that the funding for the program came from the President’s discretionary funds.

The Committee began a review of policies regarding attendance and voting at faculty meetings. The Dean noted that some of the titles of positions mentioned in the Faculty Handbook in regard to attendance and voting are outdated and that some positions, such as the Director of Institutional Research, perhaps should be added. He said that he has received a number of questions regarding the current Handbook language (IV., R., 1. and 2., pp. 77-78). Professor Cheney noted that he had participated in a similar review in the past, and that there are complexities involved in categorizing various positions. Some members argued that heads of various areas should be permitted voice and vote, while those who report to these individuals, such as assistants and associates, should perhaps be allowed to attend meetings, but should not be permitted to vote. At the members’ request, the Dean agreed to draw up a list of current titles for those positions that are outdated in the current description, as well as a list of positions that might be assigned to the category of attending with voice and vote and those that might be assigned to the category of attendance without vote.

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of April 25, 2005

Amended April 29, 2005

The thirty-fourth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, April 25, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the meeting of April 4 were approved. Changes to the minutes of the meetings of April 11 and 13 were given to the Dean.

The Dean made a series of announcements. He asked the members to review a draft of the agenda for the Faculty Meeting of May 3. The question of whether Ryan Park ’05, President of the Association of Amherst Students, should be permitted to address the Faculty for the purpose of encouraging participation in student efforts to solicit course evaluations precipitated a lengthy discussion. Some members noted that a lack of interest on the part of students and faculty members appears to be preventing the success of the student-run evaluation effort. It was noted that students are not only asking their classmates to evaluate courses taken this year, but are requesting that evaluations be done of courses taken in previous years, which might be too great a burden. Some members wondered if students could make use of the information gathered through departmental end-of-semester teaching evaluations for use in tenure and reappointment reviews, thereby preventing students from having to duplicate their efforts. After some discussion, it was agreed that it would be too difficult to translate this voluminous material into the simple quantitative system that students desire. Some members suggested that students should focus on having three or four questions for each course. Responses could be in the form of a one-to-five scale, coupled with a request for a brief comment about the course and instructor.

Some members of the Committee noted that the opportunity for feedback and self-reflection provided by teaching evaluations would be useful for the senior members of the Faculty and would also help put the teaching evaluations of tenure-track colleagues in a larger context. It was noted that some senior members of the Faculty regularly have students evaluate their courses, but that these responses are not shared with students or departments.

The Committee saw no reason not to allow Mr. Park to raise the issue of course evaluations at the Faculty Meeting. The members reviewed and approved the agenda for the Faculty Meeting of May 3.

Dean Call informed the members that he has been told by the Departments of Music and Fine Arts that they are preparing responses to the draft motion regarding procedures for early selection of outside reviewers for candidates for tenure who are creative or performing artists. The Dean will share this information with the Committee once it is received. The Department of Theater and Dance reviewed the motion and did not suggest any changes.

The Dean noted that he was pleased to receive several notes of thanks from faculty members who were recently awarded Senior Sabbatical Fellowships. Professor Townsend reported that he did some research on the sabbatical program at Vassar College and found that semester sabbaticals at full salary were given after three years of teaching and full-year sabbaticals at full salary were awarded after six years of teaching.

The members turned briefly to a committee assignment.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Cheney asked the President if annual increases for staff are based only on performance or if there is a cost-of-living component. President Marx replied that the Faculty received significant increases for 2005-2006, and that he is working with the Treasurer to try to ensure that increases would be generous for staff, as well.

The Committee turned to a personnel matter.

The Committee reviewed three course proposals forwarded from the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) and voted unanimously to send them to the Faculty for approval.

The Dean shared with the members a letter (appended), received from Professor Chickering, Chair of the Faculty Committee on Admission and Financial Aid (FCAFA), proposing a motion to amend the length of student members’ terms on the FCAFA and to revise the relevant language in the Faculty Handbook. The members reviewed the letter and changed some language of the proposed motion for purposes of clarity. The members decided that the Committee of Six should bring the motion before the Faculty and agreed the motion should read as follows:

to amend the length of student members’ terms on the Faculty Committee on Admission and Financial Aid and revise the language in the Faculty Handbook, p. 87, third paragraph, as follows:

d. The Committee on Admission and Financial Aid. The Committee on Admission and Financial Aid consists of four members of the Faculty appointed by the Committee of Six for three-year terms, four students serving one-year two-year terms to be chosen as described below and, as members ex officio, the Dean of Admission and Financial Aid (Secretary of the Committee), the Director of Financial Aid and the Dean of Students. One of the faculty members is appointed by the Committee of Six as chair, normally after a year of service. It is hoped that different areas of the curriculum will be represented by the faculty members on the Committee. The President will meet with the Committee either at its invitation or on his initiative.

and to revise the language in the Faculty Handbook, p. 88, first full paragraph as follows:

Two students shall be elected by the student body for a one-year two-year term to the Committee on Admission and Financial Aid. Following the election, the Dean of Admission and Financial Aid in consultation with the Committee on Admission and Financial Aid will appoint two additional student members for one-year two-year terms. The four student positions are to be filled in staggered order, with one appointed and one elected position to be filled annually.

The members voted six in favor and none opposed on the substance of the motion and six in favor and none opposed to forwarding the motion to the Faculty.

The Committee reviewed the following draft proposal to the CEP regarding Amherst staff members taking courses for credit at the College and agreed, after discussion, to forward it to the CEP:

The Committee of Six proposes that, in addition to allowing Amherst College staff members to audit courses at the College, Amherst should also allow staff to take Amherst College courses for credit. As is the case with auditing courses, permission of the staff member’s supervisor and of the instructor would be required, and no fee would be charged. Staff members could take no more than one course per semester, either for credit or as an auditor. Employees would be required to make up the time that they spent in classes that took place during work hours, unless the course was directly related to their job.

The members reviewed a report of this year’s recipients of President’s Initiative Fund (PIF) awards and agreed to append it to the minutes for distribution to the entire Faculty. The members agreed to discuss the criteria for making PIF awards at an upcoming meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of April 13, 2005

Amended April 29, 2005

The thirty-third meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 2:45 p.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The meeting began with the Dean informing the members that the Board of Trustees, at its April meeting, authorized one-semester sabbatic leaves at the 100 percent salary level for all newly reappointed assistant professors as a permanent change in College policy. The Committee expressed enthusiasm for the Board’s decision and thanked the Dean for his efforts to bring this issue to the Trustees’ attention.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The Committee continued its discussion of tenure procedures, returning to the subject of changing the language, but not the practice, regarding the notice of termination given to faculty members who receive a negative tenure decision.

Some members noted that any inconvenience caused by not having a tenure decision by the end of the first semester, when those who are denied tenure sometimes wish to attend job fairs at professional meetings, is outweighed by the benefits of providing the possibility of extra time for deliberations. The members discussed whether tenure deliberations might be limited to January or whether it should become common practice for tenure deliberations to continue into January or the spring semester. Several members argued that there should be a deadline by which tenure decisions should be announced and suggested the day before spring break as a possibility. Some members suggested pushing the deadline for receiving the tenure dossier back to early in an assistant professor’s sixth year in rank and having the decision made in December of the seventh year. Some members were opposed to this proposal, preferring to give tenure-track colleagues more time to prepare their scholarly materials.

In the end, it was agreed that the Committee should attempt to make all decisions in December of the candidate’s seventh year as an assistant professor, as current practice dictates, but that there should be enough flexibility to continue through the end of Interterm or into the beginning of the spring semester if necessary. The members also agreed that, no matter when tenure decisions are announced, they should all be announced on the same day, and that the norm should not shift.

After reviewing the following motion, the members voted six in favor, zero opposed, to approve the substance of the motion and six in favor, zero opposed, to forward it to the Faculty:

Proposed new language (in bold) to become effective in the academic year 2005-2006 at Faculty Handbook, III, E., 4., g., first paragraph, page 30:

g. Notification of the Tenure Decision. The final decision concerning tenure, whether affirmative or negative, will be communicated by the President to the faculty member concerned. If the decision is affirmative, the faculty member will receive explicit notification in writing that he or she is now a tenured member of the Faculty.

If the decision is negative, the College will endeavor to give the faculty member eighteen months’ notice before final termination. so notify the faculty member, such notice to include that the faculty member will have a one-year terminal appointment for the next academic year. This will entail an additional one-year terminal appointment.

The Committee returned to the subject of the lack of uniformity in the deadline imposed by departments for the submission of tenure materials by the candidate. Currently, the Dean reported, departmental deadlines range from April to June, with the majority being in May. The members agreed that the Dean should ask departments to forward the candidate’s scholarly or creative work to his office by the end of May, so that the members of the Committee of Six would have these materials available to them over the summer. In this way, the Committee would have an early start on the reading for the case when the full dossier was received in October. In addition, the members noted that the Committee could continue the practice, employed this year, of taking as early a reading as possible (after tenure dossiers are made available to the members in October) of external letters for all cases. Taking these steps, in combination with providing the possibility of greater flexibility at the other end of the deliberative process—that is extending the deadline by which decisions must be made—should greatly assist the Committee and allow a sufficient span of time in which to ask departments for additional letters, if needed, the members agreed.

The Committee continued its annual task of nominating and appointing colleagues to faculty committees.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of April 11, 2005

Amended April 29, 2005

The thirty-second meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, April 11, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Changes to the minutes of the meeting of April 4 were given to the Dean. The minutes of the meetings of March 21 and March 28 were approved.

The Committee turned to possible ways of strengthening tenure procedures, including some proposals made by the Committee of Six in 2003–2004 and some suggestions made by this year’s Committee in the fall, points which the members had decided to discuss more fully in the spring.

Turning to the subject of letters from outside reviewers, some members wondered if departments should be asked to send out their solicitation letters to possible reviewers earlier than current practice dictates, so that the Committee could receive a final list of reviewers and their CVs or biographies perhaps by the end of March. In addition to giving the Committee a sense of the range of the letters and the credentials of the reviewers early on in the tenure process, such a change would give the reviewers more time to assess cases and to write their responses.

In a similar vein and with the same purposes in mind, the members reviewed the proposal that the Committee of Six review, by September 1, the list of reviewers submitted by the departments and the lists submitted by candidates, as well as the letters themselves. In addition to enabling the Committee to develop a sense of the quality of the letters and the credentials of the reviewers early on in the tenure process, review of these materials at this early date would ensure that there would be sufficient time to ask departments to solicit additional reviewers should this step become necessary.

After discussion, the members agreed that these might not be the most useful changes. It would not be known at the time of solicitation which reviewers would agree to write, and it would be difficult, in both these scenarios, for the Committee to make judgments about the reviewers before having a sense of the substance of the case. In addition, the members noted that, without having a full sense of the case, it would be more difficult to assess whether the Committee should ask departments to supply additional letters from outside reviewers. The Dean and the members agreed that, in the letter to the chairs of tenure candidates’ departments, they would be as clear and specific as possible about the criteria for selecting outside reviewers.

The members also discussed the optimal number of letters and agreed that, at present, there are, on occasion, too few useful letters. It was suggested that at least six letters from scholars who have not had a mentoring relationship with the candidate should be obtained. If letters from mentors are included, they should be in addition to these six, up to the statutory maximum of eight for appointments in a single department. In the case of joint appointments, the current requirement of no more than ten letters was seen as appropriate. The members stressed that the critical point is that Committee members, as non-experts in the candidate’s field, must have confidence that they can depend on the range and quality of the letters from the experts.

The Committee turned next to the lack of uniformity in the deadline imposed by departments for the submission of materials by the candidate for tenure. Members of the Committee cited deadlines, based on personal experience, that ranged from April to June. Some members said that the deadline should be as early as possible, so that the review process can be started in good time. Other members said that the time after the end of the semester is highly valued by candidates to complete scholarly projects. It was agreed that the Dean would determine the range of deadlines being used at Amherst from the letters of solicitation to outside reviewers.

The Committee addressed the subject of whether final tenure votes should be provided to candidates in their sum and substance statements, as current practice dictates. A range of opinions was expressed. Some members felt the votes should be given only to those who do not receive tenure, as those who receive tenure may not benefit from such transparency and may even become alienated from colleagues who are believed to have voted against them. It was pointed out that candidates already learn whether or not their departmental colleagues are unanimous in support of their case through the departmental letter, with potential long-term negative effects if a candidate receives tenure. Some members argued that the transparency inherent in revealing the votes can be useful as a form of feedback. Other members suggested that the votes should be available by request both to those who receive tenure and to those who do not. Some argued that the current practice is best. In the end, and despite the opposite view of the President, the Committee agreed that the benefits of this transparency outweigh the drawbacks. The members noted that disclosing the votes is a practice that was adopted relatively recently (in 1999), and that the general feeling among the Faculty seems to be that more, rather than less, information should be given. It was agreed that the Committee would re-evaluate this procedure if the Faculty expresses interest in making any changes to it.

The Committee next discussed whether to change the language, but not the practice, regarding the notice of termination given to faculty members who receive a negative tenure decision. The current wording that “the College will endeavor to give the faculty member eighteen months notice before final termination” inhibits the Committee from having the flexibility to deliberate on tenure cases beyond the end of the first semester, because to do so would extend the individual’s terminal appointment beyond the year following the tenure decision. The Dean said that such a change would benefit tenure candidates, because it would eliminate the possibility that a pressing deadline would necessitate that a decision be made before the fullest possible consideration of a case. A member noted that the change would also provide for the possibility of additional time for deliberations during years when the Committee was evaluating a large number of cases. The Dean said that he conjectures that larger cohorts may be more common in upcoming years. The Committee stressed that extending tenure review beyond the first semester should be done only in extraordinary circumstances, and that every effort should be made to make tenure decisions by the end of the first semester. The members agreed to formulate a motion to change the notice of termination to the end of the full academic year following the academic year in which the tenure decision is made.

The Dean informed the members that he feels that it would be beneficial to develop procedures for early selection of outside reviewers for candidates for tenure who are creative or performing artists. Dean Call noted that the need for reviewers to attend, to the degree possible, productions and exhibitions over a number of years necessitates that outside reviewers be selected earlier than current procedure dictates. Ideally, such selection would take place soon after reappointment. The Dean said that he consulted with Professor Jack Cameron, who has been a member of several tenure review committees who have considered the cases of artists. Professor Cameron feels that it would be valuable to have outside reviewers follow a candidate’s work over a number of years. Dean Call said that Mr. Wallace, the College’s attorney, recommends developing, for use by the Committee of Six, a statement of procedures for tenuring creative and performing artists. The Dean noted that these procedures will be slightly modified versions of standard procedures. Outside reviewers, for example, would fulfill their role over a more extended time period than is typical, but they would be selected in the usual manner and by standard criteria.

The Dean noted that he had sent the following draft motion to the Departments of Music, Fine Arts, and Theater and Dance for their response and that he would now like to share it with the Committee of Six:

Proposed new language (in bold) to be added to the Faculty Handbook at III, E., 4., (6), p. 27:

(6) Letters from no fewer than six (6) and normally no more than eight (8), or in the case of joint appointments ten (10), external reviewers who are leading scholars or practitioners in the candidate’s field. If a faculty member’s scholarship or creative work encompasses musical or theatrical performances or art exhibitions, or a combination thereof, approximately half of the external reviewers should be selected by the fall of the academic year following reappointment, in order that they have time to attend as many performances and exhibitions as possible before the time of tenure review. The department will discuss with each candidate and the Dean of the Faculty the arrangements that would be best suited to his or her individual case. These reviewers’ evaluation of the performances or exhibitions will be included as part of their reports on the candidate’s work. In all cases, reviewers to will be chosen equally from lists compiled by the candidate and the department(s) (Voted by the Faculty, May 1999); the department’s, and the department(s) will include in the dossier its letter of solicitation to them the reviewers; and, a description of the process by which these persons were chosen as external reviewers, their qualifications, and their relationship, if any, to the candidate.

The Committee was in agreement with the motion and asked the Dean to continue to gather input from the departments in question and to report back on his findings. He agreed.

The President left the meeting at 5:30 p.m., as he had an appointment.

The members reviewed the College Council’s recommendation (appended) regarding the College calendars for 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. The College Council noted that its members had learned of considerable student interest in increasing the length of the reading period before final exams at the end of the fall and spring semesters. In response, the Council asked the Registrar, Gerald Mager, to suggest alternatives that would accomplish this increase in the next three-year cycle. He was able to increase the reading period in the fall semester, from two days to four, for the next three years, because Labor Day falls early in September during this period. Since the semester will start early in September, it will end early in December, thus allowing time for an extended reading period after classes end. In years when Labor Day falls later in September, an extended reading period will not be possible, as there will be less elasticity in the semester. Various constraints that determine the beginning and end of the semester precluded his suggesting a comparable change for the spring, however. The reading period in May will have to remain two days. The Committee noted that creating a longer reading period only for the fall, the shorter of the two semesters (thirteen weeks versus fourteen in the spring) might have the effect, in the minds of some, of exaggerating the difference in length between the two semesters. The Committee voted six in favor and none opposed on the substance of the College Council’s recommendation and six in favor and none opposed to forward it to the Faculty.

The Committee considered nine course proposals that were reviewed and forwarded by the Committee on Educational Policy. The members voted unanimously to forward all of them to the Faculty. Several members noted that some proposals crossed the line between description and self-promotion. They view the two as incompatible.

The Dean announced to the members that Professors Hansen, Hilborn, and Woglom were elected to the Committee of Six for a two-year term that begins in 2005-2006.

The meeting ended at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of April 4, 2005

Amended April 25, 2005

The thirty-first meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, April 4, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Changes to the minutes of the meeting of March 21 and March 28 were given to the Dean.

The President reported that the Trustee meetings of April 1 and 2 were productive and informative. He noted that a committee-of-the-whole discussion of the current socioeconomic make-up of the Amherst student body and arguments for increasing the number of lower- and middle-income students at the College was particularly thought-provoking. The Trustees, members of faculty committees, and members of the administration expressed a range of views on the subject. The Committee wondered if the President planned to have a similar conversation at a meeting of the Faculty, as several members said that their colleagues would be interested in the information that had been presented, and President Marx agreed. He next announced that the trustees had elected Jide Zeitlin ’85 to serve as the new Chairman of Amherst’s Board of Trustees, and that he will begin his term on July 1. President Marx expressed enthusiasm for his selection as Board Chairman.

The President asked the members their opinion about the idea of requiring all Amherst students to work on campus for a certain number of hours during a semester of their first year at the College. He suggested that this would be an equalizing experience for students of different socioeconomic classes, would provide another opportunity for members of the first-year class to bond with one another, and would enable students to work side-by-side with staff members and to appreciate the jobs they perform in service of the College. A member noted that another rationale for the program might be that all students, even those whose families pay the tuition in full, are subsidized by the College and should give back in some way.

The Dean made a series of announcements. He reminded the Committee of two upcoming annual lectures. Maria Heim, Assistant Professor of Religion, will give the annual Max and Etta Lazerowitz Lecture on Thursday, April 14, at 4:30 p.m. in the Alumni House. Margaret Hunt, Professor of History and Women’s and Gender Studies, will deliver the Jackie Pritzen Lecture on Tuesday, April 12, at 4:30 p.m., in Cole Assembly Room in Converse Hall.

The members next reviewed the budget of a proposal to the President’s Initiative Fund for Interdisciplinary Curricular Projects (PIF).

Dean Call asked the members for suggestions for how best to conduct a review of the positions of lecturers, senior lecturers, and visitors who teach at the College. The Dean noted that this review was intended to evaluate the structure of these positions, not the colleagues who hold them. Visiting professors are non-tenure-track individuals who have contracts for up to three years and are often appointed to one-year terms. They generally teach two courses per semester and pursue scholarship. Lecturers are hired on three-year contracts, generally teach three or more courses per semester, and, typically, are not evaluated on their scholarship. After two three-year terms, a lecturer may be eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer, receiving a five-year contract. Lecturers typically teach regularly for the College. The members agreed that Rick Griffiths, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and Professor Tawa would consult widely about how best to bring equity and, wherever possible, uniformity to the structure of these positions and would report back to the Dean. Professor Townsend requested that the Dean provide the Committee with a list of the positions that would be under consideration, and the Dean agreed to do so.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Tawa noted that she was concerned that untenured members of the Faculty are included on the Committee of Six ballot. While she believes that there is no difficulty involved with assistant professors serving in the advisory role played by the Committee, she found it problematic that their election could result in the situation of having an assistant professor participate in reappointment, tenure, and promotion deliberations, even, potentially, during a year when they themselves might be up for reappointment or tenure. Professor Tawa noted that it seemed inconsistent to allow untenured faculty members to participate in personnel decisions at the Committee of Six level and to exclude them at the departmental level. Professor Dizard offered the explanation that members of the Committee of Six who are from the same department as a candidate for reappointment, tenure, or promotion recuse themselves from the case, eliminating the possibility that their personal interests might influence a decision. The Dean noted that the Faculty Handbook (IV, S., 1., a., p. 83) states that members of the Committee of Six are elected “without restrictions of rank, tenure, status, age or departmental affiliation.” The members pointed out that, in practice, at least in recent years, assistant professors have not been elected to the Committee. If a member’s own reappointment or tenure case were being considered, procedure would dictate that the member would not participate in deliberations relating to that case. Professor Tawa wondered if the College would be better served by having two separate committees, one made up of senior faculty members to consider tenure, reappointment, and promotion, and a second, which could include assistant professors, that would focus on the other matters considered by the Committee of Six. A vote of the Faculty would be required to change the Handbook language in regard to these questions, the Dean noted.

The Committee next considered a matter relating to a proposal to the PIF.

The Committee turned briefly to reviewing drafts of the Dean’s letters to chairs and candidates concerning reappointment, tenure, and promotion. In keeping with the desire of the members to have the opportunity to review materials over the summer, the Committee asked that departments forward candidates’ scholarly or creative work to the Dean of the Faculty’s office by the end of May. The Dean agreed, and the members decided to continue their review of the letters at their next meeting.

The Committee next began its annual task of nominating and appointing colleagues to faculty committees.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of March 28, 2005

Amended April 11, 2005

The thirtieth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, March 28, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The Dean distributed the minutes of the meeting of March 21. The minutes of the meeting of March 7 were approved.

Returning to a discussion of promotion procedures, the Committee, the Dean, and the President agreed that there are no benefits to having a pro forma process, and that the moment of promotion to full professor should be made more meaningful. The members commented that, under the current system, faculty members are promoted without being recognized for their accomplishments. It was agreed that the best course would be to develop ways of using promotion to encourage ongoing engagement with the scholarly life and to facilitate the development of Amherst’s senior faculty members. The Committee discussed whether promotion might, in some cases, be based on excellence in either scholarship or teaching, rather than in all three areas that are now judged. The Committee agreed to consider these and other promotion-related questions at their next meeting.

The members turned to personnel matters.

The members discussed whether there was sufficient business to have a faculty meeting on April 5 and decided that the next meeting should be on May 3.

Dean Call next reported that the Faculty Committee on Admission and Financial Aid (FCAFA) has decided to continue its deliberations about the committee’s structure. The Dean will report back to the Committee of Six once he receives information from Professor Chickering, the FCAFA’s chair.

Dean Call informed the Committee about the College’s current policy in regard to supporting staff members who wish to pursue further education. At present, staff members cannot enroll in Amherst College courses for credit, but are permitted to audit them at no charge, by permission of their supervisor and of the instructor. Regular full-time employees and (part-time employees on a pro-rated basis) are eligible to receive reimbursement for tuition, registration, and lab fees for approved courses elsewhere that are either job-related or non job-related but directly related to future career opportunities at the College. The maximum reimbursement is $1,100 per year after one year of continuous employment for job-related courses, and $550 per year after three years of continuous employment for non-job-related courses. Professor Dizard asked the Dean to research the cost of taking a course at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and at Greenfield Community College, as he felt that the level of reimbursement currently being offered is probably inadequate to meet these expenses. Employees are expected to make up the time that they spend in classes during work hours. It was agreed that the Committee would formulate a proposal to the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) that would enable all Amherst staff members to take up to one course per semester, either for credit or as an auditor, by permission of their supervisor and the instructor. It was agreed that employees should make up the time that they spend in classes that took place during work hours, unless the course was directly related to their job. The Dean said that registration procedures for Amherst classes will be developed with the Registrar, who has suggested that the process will be much like that used for high school students who take classes at the College, but do not earn a degree from Amherst. The Committee will also ask the Committee on Priorities and Resources to study the level of support that should be provided for staff who take courses at other institutions.

Discussion returned to the request by several College offices that honorary degree recipients be announced earlier than they have been in the past. It was agreed that the current time frame should remain in place, and that the Faculty would be informed of the recipients at the Commencement faculty meeting, as has been traditional.

The Dean next reviewed with the members faculty legislation relating to class scheduling times. He said that the CEP is collecting information from faculty members who have proposed teaching classes that meet once a week for under two-and-a-half hours. Dean Call will report back to the Committee on the rationales offered by these colleagues.

In response to a question posed at the last meeting of the Committee, the Dean reported that the Faculty agreed in 1999 that retrospective letters must be solicited even from students in courses from the semester immediately preceding the consideration of the candidate for tenure or reappointment (even though these students will have just completed their in-class evaluation).

The Committee considered seventy course proposals that were reviewed and forwarded by the Committee on Educational Policy. The members voted unanimously to forward the courses to the Faculty once small revisions have been made to two proposals.

In the context of reviewing the course proposals, Professor Damon wondered if the CEP should be asked to articulate a rationale, other than a professor’s capacity for handling a class of a particular size, to base the setting of upper limits on course size. She noted that she was in favor of such limits, but felt that justifications should be offered that are not personal to particular faculty members. The Dean noted that this issue has also come to the attention of the CEP.

The meeting ended after the Committee approved a revised proposal to the President’s Initiative Fund for Interdisciplinary Curricular Projects.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of March 21, 2005

Amended April 11, 2005

The twenty-ninth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, March 21, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the meetings of February 21 and 28 were approved. Corrections to the minutes of the meeting of March 7 were given to the Dean.

The meeting began with announcements from President Marx. He informed the members that the Search Committee for the Dean of the Faculty would be hosting the campus visits of three finalists over the next several weeks, and that faculty members would have the opportunity to meet with these individuals, including Greg Call, the only internal finalist.

President Marx next discussed his intention to meet with the Committee on Priorities and Resources (CPR) to ask its members to advise him on a number of benefits issues that have been brought to the attention of the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP). He will suggest that the CPR consider its research on comparative faculty salaries in conjunction with requests for expanded child-care options and additional tuition benefits for the children of faculty and staff. The President noted that these issues should be considered together as compensation, within which potential trade-offs should be considered.

The President informed the members that he has asked the Dean of the Faculty and the Treasurer to conduct comparative research and to make a proposal to the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) regarding a policy that would enable staff members at the College to take courses for academic credit. He noted that such a policy exists at almost all of Amherst’s peer institutions. The President said that permitting staff to take courses for credit is consistent with Amherst’s educational mission, and that he would like to initiate a discussion by hearing faculty views on this issue. The Committee was, generally, in favor of allowing staff members to take courses at Amherst for credit. The Dean agreed to report back about the current policy, which was thought to include that staff members may audit courses with the permission of the instructor. The issues of whether staff members would be limited in how many courses they could take in a given semester and whether they would be required to make up the time that they spent in class were raised.

President Marx noted that he is looking forward to the April 1 committee-of-the-whole discussion planned with the Board and the members of the Committee of Six, the CAP, the CEP, the CPR, and the Faculty Committee on Admission and Financial Aid (FCAFA). Conversation will revolve around socioeconomic diversity amongst Amherst students, issues of access, and the parameters of possible increased opportunity. It will also focus on the principles that should guide fundraising to support increasing socioeconomic diversity, and whether it is in the best interest of higher education, more generally, for the College to increase the number of applicants from lower- and middle-class families. One question, the President said, is whether increased efforts by Amherst to enroll these students would simply be taking them away from other high-end institutions or would increase the overall pool of such students at top institutions. The former scenario would be less defensible, he argued, while the latter would seem to be a worthy goal. Professor Hunt asked if older, nontraditional students are being included in the pool under discussion, and the President responded that the CAP has not recommended that such individuals be considered.

The Committee next considered the FCAFA’s proposal, put forward by Professor Chickering, as chair of the committee, that changes be made in its structure. Professor Chickering wrote to the Dean in response to a request that the current Faculty Handbook language regarding the FCAFA be reviewed as part of the process of revising the Handbook. The committee suggested changing the student term on the FCAFA from one year to two and filling the four student positions in staggered order, with one pair of appointed and elected positions to be filled annually. The committee also recommended adding another faculty member to the committee so that the make-up would shift from four faculty members to five. The Committee of Six, after some discussion, requested that Dean Call ask Professor Chickering for more information regarding the committee’s rationale for making these changes.

Discussion turned to the request by several College offices that honorary degree recipients be announced earlier than at the faculty meeting on the Thursday before Commencement, as has been traditional. The proposal is that the Faculty would continue to be notified first, but by letter. Announcing the recipients several weeks before Commencement would enable the honoree’s family, friends, and classmates more time to plan, if they wish to attend, the Dean explained. The Dean reviewed with the Committee the timing of honoree announcements at other institutions. The range was from four months before commencement to the day of Commencement. The members did not have strong opinions about this issue and agreed to think the matter over and to discuss the proposal at the Committee’s next meeting.

The members turned to personnel matters.

The Dean recalled the recent history of the tenure-track faculty fellowships. Small reappointment cohorts from 1999 through 2003 had enabled the College to fund fully year-long sabbatic leaves for tenure-track faculty members following reappointment. Though this level of support was never guaranteed to continue, and the fellowship funding didn’t exist to sustain it with larger cohorts, it was certainly welcomed. At present, however, the College only has the resources to support two full-year leaves at 100 percent and two full-year leaves at 90 percent (one semester at 100 percent and one semester at 80 percent). Since cohorts of faculty members who are up for reappointment have grown larger, it is necessary for newly reappointed professors to seek outside funding to support a second semester of leave. The President and the Dean said that they feel strongly that applying for outside grants is important for the reappointed assistant professors’ careers on several levels, though they recognize that funding sources are not plentiful. Dean Call pointed out that five of this year’s nine reappointed assistant professors who plan to go on leave were able to secure support, through both internal and external funding programs, that will support a second semester’s leave beyond a College-sponsored semester leave at 100 percent salary.

Dean Call reminded the members that the Board has agreed to make fundraising for fellowships to support fourth-year leaves a priority. He also informed the Committee that the Director of Institutional Research surveyed twenty-four peer institutions about their fourth-year leave practices. Of the twenty that responded, only two have pre-tenure leave policies that are more generous than Amherst’s. Pomona provides 100 percent salary, full-year leaves, but these sabbaticals are funded by a separate foundation. Williams provides one semester at 100 percent salary and one at 50 percent. Some members of the Committee reiterated to the President and the Dean that providing 100 percent salary to all faculty members eligible for semester-long sabbatic leaves should be the College’s goal. By one estimate, such a change of policy would be equivalent in cost to approximately four to five FTEs, or between two and three percent of the regular faculty salary pool annually. They noted that the demands being placed on assistant professors are increasing steadily, and that it is not equitable that the ability to take two semesters of leave, rather than one, should be based on a faculty member’s ability to afford a reduction in salary. The President said that this issue is one of many that the CAP is considering under the rubric of support for faculty scholarship.

In preparation for a discussion of promotions to full professor, the Dean noted that the department is expected to discuss the three areas assessed at the time of tenure—scholarly or creative achievement, teaching, and service to the College. Promotion to the rank of professor originates within the department and usually occurs between six and eight years after the tenure decision.

Some members felt that the College should make better use of the range (currently, six to eight years after the tenure decision) within which promotion can now be achieved, rather than having a promotion six years following the tenure decision be pro forma. After some discussion, the Committee proposed that consideration for promotion after eight years in the rank of Associate Professor might be preferable. The members agreed that consideration of earlier promotion should be allowed if a case were stellar. At present, promotion is less substantive than it should be, and there is tremendous variability among departments in regard to how it is handled.

Some members pointed out that more thorough evaluation at the time of promotion might necessitate having teaching evaluations and letters from outside reviewers. The members agreed that it would be desirable to have the candidates write a letter to their department(s) about their scholarly plans and accomplishments, teaching, and contributions to the College community, much like the letter that candidates for reappointment will produce beginning in 2005-2006. Some members, the Dean, and the President said that they feel that senior faculty members could benefit from receiving feedback about their teaching. Professor Cheney said that some faculty members do have their students evaluate them, but these evaluations are not shared with others. The Dean suggested that providing incentives and additional resources, such as sabbaticals at 100 percent salary, might assist colleagues in remaining active as scholars and in achieving substantial growth in teaching and scholarship. He noted that the third sabbatical, that is the second post-tenure sabbatical, is a crucial moment, and that faculty members who have been inundated with committee work and departmental obligations since being promoted to associate professor often can become re-energized as scholars during this leave, particularly if it is for a year. The Dean wondered why so few faculty members apply for senior sabbatical fellowships, noting that only nine colleagues applied this year when approximately thirty plan to be on leave in 2005-2006.

The Committee returned to personnel matters.

The meeting ended with the Committee reviewing course proposals. Some members noted that a number of proposed courses would meet once a week for less than two-and-a-half hours. The Dean noted that the CEP has been writing to faculty members who propose courses in this category to ask why the meeting time is abbreviated. In some cases, the Committee noted, faculty members meet individually with students on a weekly basis, in addition to the full class meeting, for example. A member suggested that there may be relevant language, which was voted by the Faculty, that is included on the list of available schedule times for classes that is sent to the Faculty by the Registrar. The Dean agreed to review this document and suggested that information about the standard length of classes could be included on the course approval form. Discussion focused on whether the length of a class and the criteria for a seminar should be defined. The members agreed to return to this issue at its next meeting, but suggested that classes meeting once a week should not be under two-and-a-half hours unless a compelling reason is given by the instructor.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of March 7, 2005

Amended March 28, 2005

The twenty-eighth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, March 7, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the meeting of February 16 were approved. Corrections to the minutes of the meeting of February 21 and 28 were given to the Dean.

The Dean informed the members that the College has been invited to nominate two Amherst emeriti faculty members for Mellon Foundation Emeritus Fellowships. These fellowships support the research activities of outstanding scholars in the humanities and humanistic social sciences who, at the time of taking up the fellowships, are retired but remain active and productive scholars. Emeritus Fellows receive funds for a year for research and other related expenses. The Mellon Foundation stipulates that the nominees be selected through an internal competition. The members agreed that the Dean should inform all Amherst emeriti faculty members about this opportunity and request that those interested submit to him, by April 18, 2005, their plans for future research and their accomplishments to date. It was agreed that the Committee of Six would review all proposals and select the nominees.

The members turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of February 28, 2005

Amended March 21, 2005

The twenty-seventh meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, February 28, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Corrections to the minutes of the meeting of February 16 were given to the Dean.

The meeting began with the Dean informing the members that Professor Maria Heim was nominated by the Lecture Committee to deliver the Max and Etta Lazerowitz Lectureship this spring and that she accepted. The Lazerowitz Lecturer, a member of the Amherst faculty below the rank of full professor, is appointed annually. Professor Heim’s lecture, which is titled “Buddhist Ideals of Happiness,” will be on April 14 at 4:30 p.m.

The members turned to personnel matters.

The meeting ended with a discussion prompted by a letter (appended) sent to the Committee by Professor Geoffrey Woglom. In the letter, Professor Woglom expressed concern that business is being conducted in a “slow and inefficient way” at Faculty Meetings. He believes that the problem is caused by the tendency for individuals to deviate from the topic at hand and as a result of delays that arise from the practice of allowing everyone the opportunity to speak to an issue, despite the length of the conversation. Professor Woglom suggested that having the chair be more directive in moving discussion forward would ameliorate these difficulties. The members agreed that, while the President, as chair, might take some steps to move discussion along—for example, asking the body “if there is anyone who wants to speak to this point” to discourage discussion from veering off topic—the Faculty has developed formal and informal norms that the chair should not violate. For example, the Committee felt that it is not appropriate for the chair to call a question before conversation is over and everyone has had the opportunity to speak, although he might say something to the effect that “I sense that it might be time to call the question.” Some members said that they do not remember any president directing discussion in Faculty Meetings in the manner that Professor Woglom suggests. Other members recalled that past presidents may have tried to structure discussion a bit. It was agreed that any changes in how the chair directs conversation at Faculty Meetings should be discussed by the Faculty as a whole. The members would welcome a conversation on this topic at a future Faculty Meeting should colleagues wish to raise it. The Committee did not agree with Professor Woglom’s assertion that the way business has been conducted at Faculty Meetings had contributed to attendance problems.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of February 21, 2005

Amended March 21, 2005

The twenty-sixth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, February 21, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Corrections to the minutes of the meeting of February 14 were given to the Dean.

The meeting began with announcements from the President, who noted that Uri Treisman, professor of mathematics, executive director of the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas, and a 1992 MacArthur Fellow for his work on nurturing minority student high achievement in mathematics, raised important issues during his visit to the College on February 18. During his time at Amherst, Professor Treisman gave a public lecture titled “Higher Education’s Role in Strengthening K-12 Education,” and met with the Special Committee on the Amherst Education Quantitative Skills Working Group and the Committee on Academic Support. The President said that he looks forward to exploring Professor Treisman’s recommendations regarding academic support and access.

The President informed the Committee that the College will be making a proposal to the town to slow the flow of traffic on Route 116 through the installation of islands, which will serve to narrow the road in the hope of reducing the speed of motorists. He will keep the Committee informed on the progress of the proposal, he said.

The members turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of February 16, 2005

Amended March 7, 2005

The twenty-fifth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The meeting began with announcements from the Dean, who asked the Committee for suggestions for faculty members to work with Jim Brassord, the College’s Director of Facilities Planning and Management, and Peter Westover, former conservation director for the town of Amherst, to evaluate two hundred acres of woods and other landholdings of the College for conservation and educational uses.

The members turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of February 14, 2005

Amended February 28, 2005

The twenty-fourth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, February 14, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The meeting began with announcements from the Dean. In response to the Committee’s request for information about the number of Amherst students who participate in Five-College certificate programs, Dean Call handed out statistics on the five programs in which Amherst participates and the number of students who have earned certificates since 1986 (appended).

The Committee returned briefly to a discussion of the process by which President’s Initiative Fund grants were awarded this year and agreed to refine further the criteria for the program before the next round of proposals are due, November 1, 2005.

The Dean next asked the members for their input on a draft charge that he prepared for the new Ad Hoc Committee on Study Abroad. After making revisions, the members voted six in favor, none opposed, to approve the following language:

The Ad Hoc Committee on Study Abroad shall consist of three members of the Faculty (each from a different department) and the Study-Abroad Advisor and Registrar, ex officio. The term for the committee will be three years, beginning in the fall of 2005-2006. In the fall of 2007-2008, the Ad Hoc Committee will report on its experience and the Committee of Six will evaluate whether the committee should become a standing committee of the Faculty. If the members decide that it should, the Committee of Six will place a motion before the Faculty.

The committee shapes policies and procedures for evaluating and approving study-abroad programs for Amherst students and will assist the Registrar and the Study-Abroad Advisor when questions regarding the appropriateness and academic rigor of programs arise. The committee will work to expand the range of countries and cultural areas and linguistic opportunities offered to Amherst students who wish to study abroad. Particular efforts will be made to identify established and emerging programs in Asia, Latin America, South Asia, and Africa and to encourage study in these areas.

The members turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of February 7, 2005

Amended February 11, 2005

The twenty-third meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, February 7, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the twenty-first meeting were approved. Corrections to the minutes of the twenty-second meeting were given to the Dean.

The meeting began with the President informing the members that the work of the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP) continues to progress well. Professor Hunt asked if the CAP will discuss the admission of nontraditional students, and the President said that he would bring this issue to the committee’s attention.

Dean Call made several announcements. He next asked the members to hold February 16, March 11, March 25, and April 8 for possible additional meetings, and March 21 and 28 for possible double meetings. The Committee will not meet on February 23 or April 27, he said.

The Dean informed the Committee that a member of the faculty, after attending the meeting that the members held with tenure-track faculty on January 27, suggested that it would be beneficial for the Committee to have such a meeting every three years or so to help assistant professors better understand the culture of Amherst and the functions and processes of the Committee of Six. The members agreed that having periodic meetings would be useful. A member suggested that the need to discuss particular issues, rather than a commitment to a particular cycle of meetings, should dictate when such sessions are held.

The members next reviewed the thesis and transcript of a student recommended by his department for a summa cum laude degree and having an overall grade point average in the top 25 percent of last year’s graduating class. After a discussion of the thesis and the departmental statement describing the strengths of the thesis, the members voted unanimously to forward it to the Faculty. The Dean agreed to check with the Registrar to confirm how the cut-off for determining eligibility for summa is being calculated for members of the Class of 2005E.

Discussion turned to the motions regarding reappointment that will be brought to the Faculty at its meeting of February 15. Professor Townsend asked if the members felt that the process, as outlined in the motions, provides a sufficient guarantee that the communication of information to the department and the candidate would be satisfactory. The members said that they believe that, since all the senior members of the candidate’s department would read his or her letter and make it part of their discussion before writing the departmental letter, communication would be improved. The Committee noted that, by having the candidate’s letter inform the departmental letter, the subject of scholarly trajectory will be addressed more universally—in departmental letters across departments—which will inform the Committee of Six. The Dean will also communicate the Committee of Six’s reading of the case to the candidate and, as has been the past practice, may discuss the Committee’s view with the department chair.

The Committee voted six in favor and zero opposed to forward to the Faculty motions two and three regarding reappointment and six in favor and zero opposed on the substance of the motions. The members also voted unanimously to approve the faculty meeting agenda for the meeting of February 15.

The members next discussed possible members of the new Ad hoc Committee on Study Abroad and agreed that the committee should begin its work in the fall of 2005. The Committee discussed the committee’s charge, and agreed that there was no need to include a comprehensive evaluation of all study-abroad programs. The members felt instead that the committee should focus its efforts on expanding the range of countries and cultural areas and linguistic opportunities offered to Amherst students who wish to study abroad, as students are already being well served by programs in Europe, with which the College has had a relationship for many years. The members agreed that the committee should concentrate on identifying established and emerging programs in Asia, Latin America, South Asia, and Africa, as well as nontraditional programs, and encouraging study in these areas. The Committee said that assisting the Registrar and the Study-Abroad Advisor when questions regarding the academic rigor of programs arise should also be part of the charge, as should shaping policies and procedures for evaluating and approving study-abroad programs. The Dean agreed to incorporate these ideas into a draft charge.

The Committee considered a proposal (attached to the agenda for the faculty meeting to be held February 15) forwarded by the Committee on Educational Policy to approve a new Five-College Certificate in Buddhist Studies. The Dean noted that, once such a proposal has been approved by three of the consortium members, the certificate may be offered. Some members commented that the proposal seems to be well conceived and to present a program of study that is comparable to that of other Five-College certificates. Some members felt that the requirement that a grade of “B” must be earned in each course that counts toward the certificate seemed inappropriate. The Dean noted that all Five-College certificate programs have had this requirement, but said that the Five-College Deans have been discussing whether the requirement should be dropped. The Committee wondered how many Amherst students earn Five-College certificates, and the Dean agreed to provide this information at the next meeting. The Committee then voted six in favor of, none opposed to forwarding the proposal for the Five- College Certificate in Buddhist Studies to the Faculty for approval.

The meeting adjourned at 6 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of January 31, 2005

Amended February 11, 2005

The twenty-second meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, January 31, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, President Marx, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the twentieth meeting were approved. Corrections to the minutes of the twenty-first meeting were given to the Dean.

The meeting began with announcements from the President, who responded to the members’ discussion, as recorded in the minutes of the Committee’s meeting of January 24, about the President’s Initiative Fund. The President was traveling and did not attend that meeting. President Marx noted that the program is evolving, and that he supports the Committee’s desire to continue to refine PIF criteria. He looks forward to a discussion of this matter at a future meeting.

The President informed the members that the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP) had a productive retreat January 20 through 21 and has begun to meet regularly. He noted that the Amherst community is being kept fully informed about the CAP’s activities through the committee’s Web site.

The President also told the Committee that he is pleased that a pilot telementoring program being run through the Office of Admission is moving forward. The College is partnering with QuestBridge, an organization that works to provide educational opportunities for academically talented and motivated low-income high school students, for the project. The program will involve Amherst students providing information and advice about the college admission process to students identified by QuestBridge. Many of these young men and women are from families who have had little experience with higher education.

Dean Call next made a series of announcements. He informed the members that Professors Rowland Abiodun, Rosalina de la Carrera, Jim Maraniss (chair), Paul Rockwell, and Ron Rosbottom have agreed to serve on the Memorial Minute Committee for Antonio Bénitez-Rojo, Thomas B. Walton, Jr., Professor of Spanish.

Dean Call next asked the members if they felt that members of the CAP should be offered the option of being omitted from the Committee of Six ballot in the spring of 2005 and 2006, in recognition of their service. He said that there was precedent for offering immunity from the ballot, citing the case of the Priorities Planning Committee, which was active from February 1992 to February 1993. The members of that committee were offered immunity from the Committee of Six ballot of spring 1992 and 1993. The members agreed that faculty members currently serving on the CAP should be given the option of requesting that their names be omitted from the Committee of Six ballot in the spring of 2005 and 2006.

Following normal procedure of the Committee of Six, the four members elected in the spring of 2004 drew straws to determine which three would continue on the Committee next year, completing the full two-year term. Continuing members for 2005-2006 will be Professors Dizard, Hunt, and Tawa.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Townsend noted that, in the past, there was a meeting devoted to a discussion of admission profiles and practices, and he wondered why this was no longer the case. The Dean replied that changes in the way the admission profile of classes can be summarized and dwindling attendance at open meetings for the Faculty on admission-focused issues have led to the discontinuation of this practice.

Professor Townsend asked for a report on the second annual conference, held at Amherst on January 15, of faculty, deans of admission, deans of faculty, and provosts from New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) institutions to discuss issues relating to athletics and admission. The Dean reported that representatives from ten out of the eleven NESCAC schools attended, and that the discussion was edifying and fruitful. The need to keep faculty members informed and involved in issues of athletics and admission was emphasized, as it was last year, and attendees agreed that athletic directors should be invited to next year’s conference. The President noted that issues surrounding the intersection of athletics, admission, and education continue to be of concern to him, and said that it is his hope that faculty members at NESCAC institutions would urge their presidents to address these matters.

Discussion turned to the meeting of the Committee, the Dean, and tenure-track faculty members on January 27, which the members viewed as informative and productive. The Committee agreed to append notes (attached) regarding that meeting to these minutes, so as to inform the entire Faculty of the discussion. The members noted that motion three, which mandates a discussion between the Dean and recently reappointed assistant professors for purposes of reviewing the Committee’s reading of the case was welcomed by the tenure-track Faculty, though it produced little discussion. Professor Damon wondered why there wasn’t more conversation about the Committee’s decision not to have the discussion recorded. Professor Dizard noted that recording the conversation with the Dean and making it part of the tenure dossier might have implications that call to mind a mini tenure review, which is not the intent of the Committee. The Dean noted that making the conversation part of the record might result in the suggestion of contractual obligations on both sides, and that this would not be desirable. He said that it was his hope that the substance of the feedback would be useful to the recently reappointed professor, whether that information was recorded or not. Some members felt that the procedure of not recording the conversation should be tried first and that, in the future, if the Faculty wishes to consider recording the discussion, it can do so.

The members next agreed to make an addition to proposed revised motion two so that it reads as follows:

(to become effective in the academic year 2005-2006, to guide departments in their evaluation of candidates and to inform Committee of Six deliberations, at Faculty Handbook, III., D., 4., p. 21, immediately after the fourth paragraph (see Motion one below, approved by the Faculty on 10-19-04) add the following new paragraph):

Candidates for reappointment will each submit a letter to their department/s by December 1. Candidates should address their teaching experience at the College, the present state of their scholarship or creative work and their aims and plans for the future, and their engagement in College life. The letter will serve as the basis for a conversation between the candidate and tenured members of the department/s before the department meets to finalize the reappointment recommendation. The letter itself will not become part of the reappointment or tenure dossier.

The Committee will vote on the two motions at its next meeting.

The members next reviewed the thesis and transcript of a student recommended by his department for a summa cum laude degree and having an overall grade point average in the top 25 percent of last year’s graduating class. After a discussion of the thesis and the departmental statement describing the strengths of the thesis, the members voted unanimously to forward it to the Faculty.

Discussion turned to the recommendation of the Committee on Educational Policy to approve the proposal of the Special Committee on the Amherst Education Global Comprehension Working Group (see attached letter of December 10, 2004, from Professor Lobdell) that a new faculty committee on study-abroad be created. The members reviewed the proposed charge of the committee.

After some discussion, the members agreed that the “big picture” regarding global issues facing Amherst has been explored by the Global Comprehension Working Group and warrants further attention by the CAP and the Faculty. The Committee viewed as a separate issue the need to involve the Faculty to a greater degree in the system by which study-abroad advising and program evaluation is done. To this end, the members agreed that it would be best to form an Ad Hoc Committee on Study Abroad for a term of three years, during which policies can be developed and refined for study abroad and for vetting programs. If, at the end of the three-year period, it is felt that the committee should become permanent, that would be done by a vote of the Faculty. The Committee will continue to review the proposed charge from the working group and may offer revisions at its next meeting.

The Dean next asked the members if they would meet twice a week beginning the week of February 21. The Committee agreed to meet on Mondays at 3 p.m. and on Wednesdays at 2 p.m. The Dean noted that April 19 is no longer a possible faculty meeting date, as the President will be away on College business.

The meeting adjourned at 6 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of January 24, 2005

Amended February 7, 2005

The twenty-first meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the Dean of the Faculty in the President’s office at 3 p.m. on Monday, January 24, 2005. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. President Marx was traveling for the College and did not attend. The minutes of the nineteenth meeting were approved. Corrections to the minutes of the twentieth meeting were given to the Dean.

The Dean began the meeting by confirming that the Committee would continue to meet on Mondays at 3 p.m. during the spring semester. He asked the members to hold for possible meetings all Wednesdays, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m, beginning February 16, because of the high number of reappointment cases this year. The Dean informed the members that February 15, March 1, April 5, May 3, and May 19 were possible faculty meeting dates. Dean Call next offered suggestions of colleagues who might serve on a Memorial Minute Committee for Antonio Bénitez-Rojo, Thomas B. Walton, Jr., Professor of Spanish, who died January 5. Dean Call noted that Professor Bénitez-Rojo would be greatly missed, and the members expressed their sorrow over his loss.

Under “Questions from Committee members, Professor Hunt asked if the criteria that are employed to make President’s Initiative Fund (PIF) awards could be clarified, as she believes that there is some confusion and a degree of disappointment among some members of the Faculty about the program. Professor Cheney said that he has been impressed with the openness of the PIF process, and that he was pleased that all faculty members were invited to apply for this funding. He noted that PIF is a new program, and that any growing pains associated with it have been part of an ongoing evolutionary process. The Dean suggested that the Committee could discuss further and clarify the PIF guidelines at a future meeting, and the members agreed.

Conversation turned to the Committee’s upcoming meeting with tenure-track faculty members. The Committee agreed to present on January 27 the following draft motions as starting points for discussion:

Revised Motion Two

(to become effective in the academic year 2005-2006, to guide departments in their evaluation of candidates and to inform Committee of Six deliberations, at Faculty Handbook, III., D., 4., p. 21, immediately after the fourth paragraph (see motion one below, approved by the Faculty, 10-19-04) add the following new paragraph):

Candidates for reappointment will each submit a letter to their department/s by December 1. Candidates should address their teaching experience at the College, the present state of their scholarship or creative work and their aims and plans for the future, and their engagement in College life. The letter itself will not become part of the reappointment or tenure dossier.

New Motion Three

Proposed new language (in bold) to be added to the Faculty Handbook, III, D., 4., p.22, at the end of the third paragraph (to become effective in the academic year 2005-2006)

A letter about reappointment will be sent by the President to the individual under review, with copy to the department Chair, indicating the recommendation which the President intends to make to the Board of Trustees. Formal notification of reappointment will follow confirmation by the Board of Trustees. The Dean will invite each candidate who is reappointed to meet with him or her soon after the reappointment process is completed to discuss the Committee of Six’s reading of the candidate’s case.

The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Tuesday, December 14, 2004

(Amended December 17, 2004)

The eighteenth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 4:15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 14, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, December 13, 2004

(Amended December 17, 2004)

The seventeenth meeting of the Committee for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by the President in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, December 13, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Corrections to the minutes of the fourteenth and fifteenth meetings were given to the Dean. The minutes of the thirteenth meeting were approved.

The Committee returned to the question of whether it might be beneficial to have the public minutes of Committee of Six meetings posted, with password protection, on the Dean of the Faculty’s Web site, as the Faculty Meeting minutes soon will be. The minutes of the Committee on Educational Policy and those of the Committee on Priorities and Resources are currently posted on the site. The members agreed that the public minutes should be posted on the Web site, beginning in the spring semester and retroactive to the first fall 2004 meeting. They agreed to the same schedule for the Faculty Meeting minutes. Both the Faculty Meeting minutes and the Committee of Six minutes will be accessible only to those who currently receive them by mail. The minutes will continue to be mailed in hard-copy form for the remainder of this year. Beginning in the fall of 2005, those who would like to have minutes mailed to them will be asked to notify the Dean’s office at the beginning of each academic year. The members also decided that the Dean’s office will send out email notification to the Faculty at the time minutes are posted.

The President next discussed with the Committee his plans for the Board meetings that remain for this year, which will take place in January, April, and May. It is his hope to focus in a preliminary way, in a committee-of-the-whole format, on the three major components that have traditionally composed capital campaigns—support for facilities, financial aid, and the academic program—and to have the members of the Committee of Six, the Committee on Academic Priorities, the Committee on Priorities and Resources, and/or the Committee on Educational Policy participate in Board discussions of these matters.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Friday, December 10, 2004

(Amended December 17, 2004)

The sixteenth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004-2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, December 10, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, December 6, 2004

(Amended December 17, 2004)

The fifteenth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004-2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 6, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the thirteenth meeting were approved.

President Marx began the meeting by requesting that Mark Fiegenbaum, Associate in the Technical Services Department of the Frost Library; Mary McMahon, Director of Curricular Computing Services; and Jacob Thomas ’07, in their role as members of the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP), be invited as guests to the December 14 meeting of the Faculty. The Committee agreed that they should be invited.

The Dean asked for permission, due to a change in the student newspaper’s administrative structure, for Samantha Lacher ’06, chairman of the 2005 Executive Board of the Amherst Student, to attend faculty meetings temporarily as an invited guest until attendance and voting at faculty meetings is discussed by the Committee of Six this coming spring. The members agreed.

The Dean consulted with the Committee on the matter of a request for an extended sabbatic leave. Professor Dizard asked that the Committee consider at some point in the future whether departments should be made aware of such requests, and whether they should have the opportunity to weigh them against their needs, before they are brought to the Committee for approval. Dean Call indicated that, in the case under consideration, plans have been shared with the department, and that he would contact the chair to discuss how the department’s course offerings might be covered during the fall of 2005.

The members next continued their review of proposals to the President’s Initiative Fund for Interdisciplinary Curricular Projects (PIF).

The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Wednesday, December 1, 2004

(Amended December 17, 2004)

The fourteenth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Corrections to the minutes of the thirteenth meeting were given to the Dean. The minutes of the twelfth meeting were approved.

The Dean began the meeting by informing the members that a scheduling oversight resulted in the upcoming meeting of the faculty being set for the first night of Hanukkah. Several faculty members told Dean Call that they would be unable to attend on December 7, as they would have holiday obligations that evening. The Committee decided to postpone the meeting until Tuesday, December 14, and the Dean agreed to inform the Faculty by letter.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, November 29, 2004

(Amended December 6, 2004)

The thirteenth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, November 29, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Corrections to the minutes of the twelfth meeting were given to the Dean. The minutes of the eleventh meeting were approved.

The meeting began with a discussion regarding the agenda for the faculty meeting of December 7. Professor Hunt asked why motion two regarding revisions to the procedures for reappointment was not on the draft agenda. She noted that, at the faculty meeting of November, 16, the motion was sent back to the Committee of Six for revision. Dean Call responded that, in order to include the motion on the agenda of the December 7 meeting, decisions regarding revisions would have to be made at today’s meeting of the Committee of Six. Since pressing personnel matters would not allow for such a discussion at present, the motion would be discussed as soon as the Committee’s schedule permitted, the Dean said. Professor Hunt agreed, commenting that it was important that the Faculty be aware that the motion would be revised by the Committee and reconsidered at a faculty meeting in the near future. A member noted, apropos of Professor Upton’s query (during the faculty meeting) about the term “creative” in both reappointment motions, that this is the term used in connection with candidacy for tenure (see Faculty Handbook, III, E, 4., (4), p. 26, for example) and that it (rather than, say, “artistic”) appears in the reappointment motions for the sake of consistency.

The members turned briefly to the College Council motions that will be on the agenda for the December 7 faculty meeting. Professor Dizard said that he worries, despite wording in the motion to the contrary, that some faculty members might perceive a loss of faculty prerogative in motion three’s proposal that the “recommended course penalty for an act of academic dishonesty, whether or not it is adjudicated by the Committee on Discipline, is failure in the course.” Although the motion states that course penalties are “imposed at the discretion of the instructor,” Professor Dizard wondered if, by saying that the expected procedure would be failure in the course, some faculty members might be less likely to impose a penalty that would be at variance with what would be considered the norm. Professor Hunt noted that some acts of academic dishonesty are more serious than others and that the motion as it currently stands seems to presume that they are all equally deserving of a fairly extreme response. Professor Cheney reminded the Committee that motion three has the endorsement of the student body and the faculty members on the College Council, and that the current language does preserve the power of the Faculty to determine course penalties.

The Dean asked the members whether they felt it would be beneficial to have the minutes of faculty meetings posted, with password protection, on the Dean of the Faculty’s Web site. He noted that the minutes of the Committee on Educational Policy and those of the Committee on Priorities and Resources are currently posted on the site. If they are put on the Web, the minutes of faculty meetings would be accessible only to those who currently receive them by mail. Professor Dizard asked if the minutes would continue to be mailed to the Faculty if they are on the Web. He said that he saw environmental and cost benefits to discontinuing the hard-copy version of the minutes. The Committee agreed that the minutes of faculty meetings will be posted on the Web and, for now, will also be mailed. After a period of transition, the practice of mailing the minutes will probably be discontinued. The members also discussed whether the minutes of the Committee of Six might be posted on the Web. It was decided not to do so at present, but the members agreed to return to this question in the future.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Tawa asked if the Committee of Six would be preparing for the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP) a planning document that was equivalent to those being done by departments. President Marx said that he had not seen any indication that the CAP had on its agenda the exploration of faculty committee structures. The members noted that, if asked, they would supply the CAP with any information that it should require.

Professor Townsend noted that the comments made by Professor Upton at the faculty meeting of November 16 raised significant questions about the inclusion of the consideration of non-lettered forms of learning, not merely visual forms, in the planning process for the College’s future. He wondered whether performative forms of learning will be adequately served without representation on the CAP. Professor Dizard noted that, at this juncture, it would not be appropriate for the Committee of Six to direct the activities of the CAP. President Marx said that the committee would be open to suggestions and noted that the arts should be addressed in the CAP’s deliberations, and could possibly be addressed through a subcommittee structure if the CAP so wished. Some members noted that, though some attention was paid to the conventional divisions of learning when selecting the members of the CAP, they were ultimately chosen for their ability to consider broad institutional interests and to represent the whole, rather than to advocate for the interests of departments or disciplines. President Marx agreed and characterized the CAP as a consultative committee. Its members will identify issues of concern, and, when they require assistance to consider areas in which they lack experience or proficiency, they will seek out expertise.

The Committee asked President Marx to give his impressions of the discussion of the CAP’s role and the airing of views about the planning process that took place at the November 18 faculty meeting. He responded that he took as an extremely positive sign the Faculty’s willingness to embark on self-conscious discussion of the College’s future. The President was pleased that the process that has been designed to generate such a dialogue received the support of a strong majority of the Faculty, noting that the vote of the Faculty has given the process some measure of legitimacy at its earliest stage. He said that, at the same time, he remains mindful of the twenty-five faculty members who did not support the process as designed, as it is his hope that the entire Faculty will be engaged in the upcoming deliberations. Some members said that they believe that, in some cases, the negative votes represented opposition based on matters of principle relating to a perceived blurring of the roles of the President and the Faculty, while in other instances, the negative votes represented the voice of caution, rather than repudiation. The Committee felt that, in the end, faculty members will consider the substance of the motions that will be brought before them as a result of the planning process, rather than focusing on the architecture through which the proposals were conceived–particularly, since that process has been approved by the Faculty.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

In the short time remaining, the members began their review of proposals to the President’s Initiative Fund for Interdisciplinary Curricular Projects (PIF). President Marx noted that the PIF was created to provide incentives for exploring potential additions to the curriculum. In making judgments about whether to fund proposals, he asked the Committee to consider which projects hold the promise of viable curricular development. He informed the Committee that groups that are making proposals for the renewal of funding will be asked to provide, by December 6, an accounting of how their first award was spent.

Professor Damon noted that she has heard some criticism that the PIF model results in an emphasis being placed on developing concepts and proposals that require that funds be spent, rather than placing the focus on the solidity of the Faculty’s ideas. Some members wondered whether some of the projects that have been funded in the past, and others that have been proposed this year, might be accomplished using lecture funds and other resources, rather than PIF awards. The emphasis of these proposals seems to be on organizing lectures and other events, rather than on curricular exploration. The President agreed that a rigorous standard, in regard to supporting only those projects that demonstrate that they will inform the College’s deliberations about new curricular programs, must be applied when selecting PIF recipients.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, November 15, 2004

(Amended December 1, 2004)

The twelfth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Corrections to the minutes of the eleventh meeting were given to the Dean.

The Dean informed the members that the Mellon 8 deans met in New York last week and, working with an external review committee, awarded Amherst two Semester Leave grants (to Professors Hagadorn and Sawyer) and two Summer Research grants (to Professors Corrales and Shah). Dean Call noted that Amherst’s semester-leave awards were particularly impressive in light of the fact that Amherst faculty members have now received five of the twenty-nine grants awarded. The Mellon 8 Deans awarded eleven Semester Leave grants this year.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, November 8, 2004

The eleventh meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, November 8, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the eighth meeting were approved. Corrections to the minutes of the ninth and tenth meetings were given to the Dean.

Under “Announcements from the President,” President Marx requested that Mark Fiegenbaum, Associate in the Technical Services Department of the Frost Library; Mary McMahon, Director of Curricular Computing Services; and Jacob Thomas ’07, in their role as members of the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP), be invited as guests to the November 16 meeting of the Faculty. The Committee agreed that they should be invited. A member asked why the other student member of the CAP, Michael Simmons ’06, was not being invited. The Dean responded that Mr. Simmons already has permission to attend faculty meetings by virtue of his position in the student government.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” one member expressed concern that, since the Faculty has received two versions of motion three, proposed by the College Council to amend the Code of Conduct—the version composed by the College Council and a revised version in which the word “normal” was removed, per the Committee of Six’s recommendation—efforts should be made to insure that members of the Faculty are considering the revised motion, rather than the earlier one. The Dean said that he appreciated the opportunity to provide clarification and noted that the revised motion, which appears below, was discussed in the Committee of Six minutes of October 6 and will also be shown on the faculty meeting agenda for the meeting of November 16.

7. College Council Motion #3 to add the following language in the Student Handbook,
p. 29, to the third paragraph under “Academic Dishonesty”:

2. In cases in which the instructor suspects that a student may have committed an act of academic dishonesty and, after speaking to the student, feels that adjudication is necessary to determine the student’s guilt or innocence, the instructor will refer the case to the Dean for Student Conduct. In such instances, since the instructor and the student disagree on the facts of the case–that is, on whether an act of academic dishonesty occurred–the Dean for Student Conduct will send the case to the Committee on Discipline. In all cases in which the Committee on Discipline finds a student guilty of an act of academic dishonesty, the Committee will determine all penalties except for course penalties, which are imposed at the discretion of the instructor. The normal recommended course penalty for an act of academic dishonesty, whether or not it is adjudicated by the Committee on Discipline, is failure in the course. The Committee may recommend a particular course penalty to the instructor, but the imposition of such a penalty is at the discretion of the instructor.

and, to add the following language in the Student Handbook, p. 30, under the “Penalties” section, under the paragraph on “Course Penalties”:

Course Penalties: Acts of cheating, plagiarism or other forms of academic dishonesty should result in a student’s receiving a failing grade. The normal recommended penalty for an act of academic dishonesty is failure for the course, though grade penalties are always imposed solely at the discretion of the instructor. The instructor, after consultation with the Dean for Student Conduct, has the discretion to decide whether the grade should be imposed for a particular assignment or for the whole course. All such acts will be part of the student’s disciplinary record in the Dean of Students’ Office official record, and may, at the judgment of the Committee on Discipline, be recorded on the student’s transcript. The Committee on Discipline or the Dean for Student Conduct may impose other penalties as well–from disciplinary probation to expulsion, depending on the seriousness of the offense and the student’s previous record.

The Committee next considered four course proposals. The members voted six to zero to approve the proposals and six to zero to forward them to the Faculty.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, November 1, 2004

(Amended November 11, 2004)

The tenth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, November 1, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. The minutes of the seventh meeting were approved. Corrections to the minutes of the eighth and ninth meetings were given to the Dean.

The members began the meeting by discussing a letter (appended), written to the Committee by the faculty members (excluding the President) of the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP), expressing their “firm conviction” that President Marx should be a member of the CAP and the reasoning that led them to this conclusion. They wrote the letter in response to the motion, put forward, seconded, and postponed during the closing minutes of the October 19 meeting of the Faculty, that the President not serve on the committee. A member asked if the CAP was in favor of appointing a faculty member of the committee to serve as co-chair with the President. President Marx responded that the CAP met to draft its letter to the Committee of Six in his absence, and, therefore, he could not say whether the committee considered the co-chair question. One member wondered whether the suggestion that a faculty co-chair lead discussion when curricular matters were under consideration, and that the President chair conversation surrounding other issues, could be an effective model. Most members felt that such a structure would serve no useful purpose and might even complicate matters. Some members also felt that a faculty member’s serving as co-chair would compromise the Faculty’s autonomy and thus weaken its voice on the committee.

The Committee then turned to Professor Rebecca Sinos’s motion itself. The Committee of Six concurred with the CAP’s appraisal of the President’s role on the committee and voted six opposed and zero in favor on the substance of Professor Sinos’s motion.

Under “Announcements from the President,” President Marx noted that, within days of meeting with most tenure-track members of the Faculty and hearing their concerns regarding support for fourth-year leaves, Dean Call successfully recommended to the Board of Trustees to add to the fundraising priorities of the College support for sabbatic leaves at the 100 percent salary level for newly reappointed assistant professors. The Dean commented that, following reappointment and before the time of tenure review, it is critical that the College provide support at a level sufficient to enable tenure-track faculty members to focus on their scholarship without teaching responsibilities. Professor Cheney asked if sabbaticals at the level of 100 percent for two semesters for assistant professors are being considered for this year. Dean Call replied that all ideas will be discussed, and he is currently working with the Committee on Priorities and Resources to determine the level of support that could be offered. Though it may take some time, of course, for the College to achieve this fundraising goal, the Dean was heartened by the Board’s prompt response to the needs of tenure-track faculty members.

Professor Hunt next reported on feedback that she received from a colleague regarding the second revised reappointment motion that will be brought before the Faculty on November 16. This colleague, and some of the other assistant professors who attended the meeting that the President and Dean had on October 18 with tenure-track faculty members, expressed the desire that provisions for feedback at the time of reappointment review and before tenure review be institutionalized. Professor Hunt noted that the colleague raised concern that, at present, offering such feedback is done at the discretion of the Dean of the Faculty and is not part of formal reappointment procedures as outlined in the Faculty Handbook.

Dean Call noted that last year’s Committee of Six discussed this issue extensively as part of its larger conversation about how to make the reappointment process more useful to tenure-track colleagues, to improve communication at the time of reappointment and before tenure review, and to encourage departments to mentor assistant professors. At the time, it was suggested that candidates for reappointment be asked to submit to the Committee of Six a letter outlining his or her progress, accomplishments, and plans for the future in the areas of teaching and research. In the end, the Committee decided that consultation with the Faculty was needed before such a letter could be requested, because requiring such a document constituted a change to the reappointment procedures.

Last year’s Committee felt that a formal faculty vote was not needed to put into place another of their suggestions, namely, the practice of having the Dean invite each candidate who is reappointed to meet with him or her soon after the reappointment process is completed to discuss the Committee of Six’s reading of the candidate’s case. (Dean Call noted that he did, in fact, meet with all assistant professors who were reappointed in 2003–2004 and will continue this practice this year.)

Last year’s Committee felt that, in addition, all assistant professors should be strongly encouraged to apply for fellowships for a fourth-year leave. If an assistant professor applied for a fellowship and/or wrote a letter to the Committee of Six, the members felt that the Dean could discuss with the candidate and the department chair, in separate meetings, the research and teaching plans outlined in these documents. The Committee also suggested that, upon the assistant professor s return from leave, at the end of the fourth year, the Dean could again invite each assistant professor to review the progress of his or her scholarship and its future direction. The members said that it would be desirable for a similar dialogue to occur between the assistant professor and the chair, as part of their annual conversation, when the assistant professor returned from leave.

In the end, the President, the Dean, and last year’s Committee agreed that, while they saw great value in offering these options to promote communication on both sides, they believed that consultation with the Faculty was needed about these ideas. The Dean noted that the reappointment motion already passed by the Faculty this fall and the motion that will be before the Faculty on November 16 emerged from last year’s discussions. The President and the Dean said that they would be pleased to have this year’s Committee of Six consider whether the Dean’s and chairs’ role in providing feedback to reappointed assistant professors should be brought before the Faculty for a vote and, thus, be codified and included in the Faculty Handbook.

Professor Hunt said that the colleague also wondered whether it would be useful for reappointment candidates to discuss in letters to the Committee of Six their records of teaching and service, and their scholarship, as the current motion suggests, or if a discussion of their scholarship alone would be most useful. Professor Dizard said that, after only two-and-a-half years at the College, some reappointment candidates may have accomplished less in the area of scholarship than they have in the other two categories, and for this reason, all three areas should be covered in the letter. Other members felt that these self-appraisals should include the three areas for reasons of balance and to maintain a degree of parity with tenure procedures.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The Dean next distributed to the members draft language (appended) that he suggested should be added to the Faculty Handbook (pp. 61-66) to incorporate the Honor Code that was voted by the Faculty on May 20, 2004. The Committee agreed.

Discussion turned to College Council motions two and four, which are proposed amendments to the College’s Honor Code. Dean Call shared with the members a letter (appended) received from Professor Joseph Moore, chair of the College Council, in response to the Committee’s request for additional information about the motions. Some members remained concerned about the usefulness of the procedure described in motion two, which provides that, in cases of alleged academic dishonesty, a student selected at random from the student body will replace one of the elected student members on the hearing panel. In his letter, Professor Moore noted that the College Council acknowledges that it “view(s) this as a largely symbolic method of involving the student body as a whole in the adjudication of this issue.”

Professor Dizard wondered if a system resembling the empaneling of a jury and conducting a process much like voir dire might involve the student body to a greater degree and with greater benefits. He suggested that a pool of ten or fifteen students might be selected for each case and instructed thoroughly about the Honor Code and the College’s adjudication procedures. In this way, everyone in the pool would participate, in a fashion, in the Honor Code process, although only a single student need be drawn from the pool to serve on the hearing panel. Professor Dizard said that he does not feel strongly about the matter, however, particularly since the issue could be revisited if it becomes clear that the proposed procedure is in need of improvement. The members then voted three in favor and zero opposed to the substance of the motion, with three abstentions. The Committee voted six in favor and zero opposed to forward the motion to the Faculty.

The members had a brief discussion about the rationale provided by Professor Moore for motion four, which allows a faculty member to request that a Disciplinary Hearing Officer present a case of alleged academic dishonesty as the complainant on behalf of a faculty member. The Committee then voted six in favor and zero opposed on the substance of the motion and six in favor and zero opposed to forward it to the Faculty.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The members approved the agenda for the November 16 meeting of the Faculty.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, October 25, 2004

(Amended November 11, 2004)

The ninth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Corrections to the minutes of the seventh meeting were given to the Dean.

The meeting began with the Committee asking the President for his impressions of last weekend’s meeting of the Board of Trustees, in particular of the overview discussion of what might justify FTE expansion. The Committee of Six and the faculty members of the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP), the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), and the Committee on Priorities and Resources (CPR) participated in this conversation on October 22. The President said that he felt that the discussion had been successful in raising important questions, albeit in a preliminary way, that will inform the consideration over the next year of aspects of the College’s future.

The Committee continued its discussion of issues surrounding the motion, put forward, seconded, and postponed during the closing minutes of the October 19 meeting of the Faculty, that the President not serve on the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP). President Marx informed the members that he continues to receive emails and letters from colleagues about this matter, and that a substantial number of the writers suggested that a way be found to keep the motion off the agenda (one such letter, from Professor Jagannathan, and a response from Professor Rebecca Sinos, are appended). The President said that, in his responses to these communications, he has emphasized that it is appropriate for the Faculty to deliberate on the motion and to decide on its merits, and that he will not encourage or support efforts to circumvent its consideration at the next faculty meeting, which is set for November 16. He informed the members that the Dean will chair the portion of the meeting devoted to discussion and consideration of the motion. The President said that, in keeping with appropriate channels for voicing opinions, faculty members who wish to make their views known about the motion should write to the Committee of Six and have their letter appended to the minutes and/or should speak to the motion at the faculty meeting. The Committee agreed, and some members indicated that they plan to speak at the November 16 meeting in support of the President’s membership on and chairmanship of the CAP.

The President reintroduced the question of whether it would be beneficial for the CAP to have a faculty member serve as co-chair. He noted that he had supported taking this step when he first raised the idea with the Committee several weeks ago. At that time, members agreed that, since the CAP was called into being by the President as a capital campaign committee that has academic priorities as its focus, and the President, in consultation with both last year's and this year’s Committee of Six, appointed the members of CAP, it was clear that the CAP was a committee on which the President should sit. Once that was clear, who chaired the committee struck the members as a mere formality. The members suggested that, perhaps, the members of the CAP should deliberate on this matter and appoint their own co-chair if they feel that doing so would be advantageous.

Professor Cheney reiterated concerns that he raised at the Committee’s meeting of October 21 that efforts be made to provide clarity about the principles and premises of the CAP process, the process itself, and its outcomes. He feels that it is critical that the Faculty develop a sense of the clarity of results in procedural terms. The President reiterated that the CAP will share its conclusions, shaped in good part by the Faculty, with the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), which will have the opportunity to vet these results, and with the Committee of Six. Ultimately and in conformance with normal governance procedures, all CAP recommendations bearing on matters over which the Faculty has authority will be forwarded to the Committee of Six to be formulated as motions, and these will be brought before the Faculty, and the Faculty will vote.

By so doing, the Faculty will decide which fundamental principles will guide the process of setting academic priorities and expanding the Faculty. There will also be an opportunity for the Faculty to voice its opinions about areas beyond the curriculum that will be brought forward as part of the CAP’s recommendations. Professor Cheney said that he understands the concerns about separation of powers and issues of sovereignty, and he feels that these should be alleviated once the Faculty recognizes that it is not conceding any of its prerogatives. The President agreed with Professor Cheney and emphasized that the coherence of the recommendations that emerge from the CAP process will be critical for moving forward. Professor Dizard recommended that the set of recommendations should be knitted together loosely, so that elements do not become so dependent on one another that flexibility is lost.

Professor Hunt noted that she has received feedback from a colleague regarding the second revised reappointment motion that will be brought before the Faculty on November 16. She suggested that the Committee review the motion at its next meeting and, perhaps, make changes in light of suggestions made by this colleague and by some tenure-track faculty members who met with the President and the Dean on October 18.

The Dean next made a series of announcements. He noted that the Committee’s questions about two course proposals have now been resolved. The members reviewed one additional proposal and voted six in favor and zero opposed on the substance of the motions and six in favor and zero opposed to forward all three proposals to the Faculty.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The Dean reported that he recommended to the Committee on Priorities and Resources (CPR) that the minimum level of support for fourth-year leaves for those candidates who are reappointed this year and choose to take a leave in 2005-2006 be a semester at 100 percent salary. The CPR expressed unanimous support and voted to approve the recommendation. It is the Dean’s hope that a combination of internal and external funding will enable most, if not all, reappointed assistant professors to take a two-semester leave next year.

The Committee continued its review of proposals for Mellon 8 Summer Research Stipends and chose three that Amherst will bring forward to the Mellon 8 deans, who will work with an external review committee to make the final selections.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The members agreed to review the agenda for the November 16 meeting of the Faculty at the next meeting of the Committee of Six.

The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Thursday, October 21, 2004

(Amended November 8, 2004)

The eighth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 8 p.m. on Thursday, October 21, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Professor Dizard was unable to attend.

Discussion focused on issues surrounding the motion, put forward, seconded, and postponed during the closing minutes of the October 19 meeting of the Faculty, that the President not serve on the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP). President Marx noted that many members of the Faculty have suggested to him that the motion be avoided by a parliamentary maneuver, but he believes that the Faculty must address this motion in a deliberative process that involves the Faculty as a whole. The President then reiterated to the members his commitment to remaining engaged with the Faculty in the critical process of deliberation that will shape the College’s future. He acknowledged that the CAP is a campaign-planning committee that has been purposefully structured to avoid giving pride of place to fundraising, and, rather, to consider which academic priorities should inform fundraising goals. He continues to believe that this model is the most educationally viable and responsible one, in which principles should guide decisions and systematic considerations should prevail over the ad hoc.

The President said that he disagreed with the proposal at the faculty meeting that he should have no membership in the CAP, as he remains convinced that it is preferable for him to be a part of the discussion—to have the opportunity to share and revise his perspectives and to have the views of the other CAP members shared with him—so as to build a process that will be informed by multiple points of view and that will achieve consensus on how best to chart the College’s future. The alternative to coming together in this way is that the President’s active role would begin when the CAP’s concluded. Under this scenario, the President would review a set of recommendations that would be developed in isolation from him. Such a structure would necessitate that he evaluate each recommendation without being informed by deliberations.

The President noted that both last year’s and this year’s Committee of Six have played a vital role in the design and formation of the CAP. At every step of the process, he has asked the members for guidance and insight and, after substantial discussion and give and take, the Committee reached consensus. Most recently, the President sought the Committee’s advice on who should charge the CAP, whether the President should chair the committee, and whether a faculty member should be appointed as a co-chair of the CAP.

Professor Cheney noted that he has spoken with a number of faculty members and believes that the desire of some to remove the President from the CAP stems from their concern that, particularly in the matter of FTE allocation, the President should not have two “votes” in the process, one at the beginning and one at the end. Professor Cheney used the metaphor of a prosecutor sitting on a jury to explicate this view and said that some faculty members don’t trust the CAP procedure and also fear that they and their departments will be left out of the process. Others feel that the proposed CAP structure does not provide enough of a check on an eager and visionary President, who may seek to manipulate the committee.

The President responded that these sentiments in no way echo his intent, which is to ensure a deliberative process of setting priorities that will be informed by the experience and views of faculty committees and academic departments and the Amherst community as a whole. He reiterated that, even if he desired to do so, it would be impossible for him to force an agenda on the Faculty and to circumvent established governance structures. The President noted that no courses, programs, departments, or majors could be created or eliminated without a vote of the Faculty, and that the CEP will still recommend particular FTE allocations, informed by the general principles developed by the CAP and approved by the Faculty. Any recommendations to the Board of Trustees will require the support of the Faculty to be implemented and to be successful, he said, but without a case for FTE expansion or other academic-related initiatives the Trustees would have no proposals to act upon. Instead, he hopes the Faculty will take this opportunity to shape its aspirations through assessment and planning, in order to make a strong case that the President would then advocate to the Board.

Some members said that communicating explicitly the structure and process of the CAP will go a long way toward allaying concerns that members of the Faculty may have.

The members next considered dates for the next meeting of the Faculty and suggested that November 16 would be best. The President and the Dean praised the increased level of participation by the tenure-track members of the Faculty at the October 19 faculty meeting, and said that it is their hope that these and other voices will continue to be heard. The members agreed.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, October 18, 2004

(Amended November 1, 2004)

The seventh meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, October 18, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The President began the meeting by introducing Marian Matheson, Director of Institutional Research, to the members. He invited Ms. Matheson to consult with the members about preliminary research that she is preparing to inform the overview discussion of what might justify FTE expansion that the Trustees, the Committee of Six, and the faculty members of the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP), the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), and the Committee on Priorities and Resources (CPR) will have on October 22. President Marx said that he expects that this conversation will focus on what information will be needed in the future to assess FTE needs arising from among the following possible academic priorities: new forms of pedagogy, enhancing First-Year Seminars, interdisciplinary efforts, support for faculty scholarship, increasing visual understanding, meeting student needs in writing and quantitative skills, enhancing experiential learning, strengthening existing programs, encouraging global comprehension, diminishing class size, increasing faculty diversity, and balancing departmental age distribution.

Ms. Matheson explained to the Committee that she is in the process of refining descriptive information about issues of faculty diversity, enrollment trends at Amherst and at peer institutions, existing College programs, First-Year Seminars, and departmental age distribution and would welcome their feedback. She noted that she presented her preliminary information in these areas at a meeting of the CEP and also met individually and in small groups with the faculty members of the other committees that will participate in the upcoming discussion with the Board. The Committee of Six members shared their reactions to Ms. Matheson’s research and offered suggestions for refining this work. Professor Hunt recommended that the diversity research be expanded to include Asians, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans, as well as blacks and Hispanics. Ms. Matheson agreed that incorporating this information would be valuable. She noted that the diversity information that she presented came from “Minority Faculty at COFHE: What We Know” (April 2004), a report of the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE). Information about Asians, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans was not included in this research. President Marx noted that it is his hope that the overview conversation will explore and identify critical issues and indicate areas that require further research.

Ms. Matheson left the meeting, and the Dean reported to the members that the Special Committee on the Amherst Education working group on Global Comprehension and the CEP have considered the question of whether an advisory committee on study abroad should be formed. The members of the working group continue to feel that it is important that such a committee be appointed, and they have sent a draft charge to the CEP.

Dean Call next discussed with the members statistics concerning reappointments over the past twenty-four years. He noted that, since 1980, 149 members of the Faculty have stood for reappointment. Of those 149 faculty members, 140 (94 percent) were reappointed and nine were not. Of the nine unsuccessful cases, four occurred between 1995 and 1998, three took place before 1995, and two cases occurred after 1998. In the last six years, there have been twenty-nine reappointment cases. Twenty-seven (93 percent) were successful and two were unsuccessful. Dean Call said that, in the past decade, forty-six faculty members have stood for reappointment and forty cases (87 percent) were successful. Six were unsuccessful.

The Dean reviewed the recent history of tenure cohorts. Of the seventy-five faculty members hired in tenure-track positions between 1985 and 1995, sixty individuals (80 percent) stood for tenure, and of that group, forty-one of them (68.3 percent), received it. Put another way, 54.7 percent of these recent tenure-track hires have achieved tenure. Of the fifteen who did not stand for tenure, five were either denied reappointment or chose explicitly not to stand for it. Most of the remaining ten chose to move on to positions at other institutions, three of them citing family reasons, while others resigned because of chronic illness, visa problems, or a decision to change academic fields.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Cheney reminded President Marx that it is a tradition at Amherst that, if the President speaks at length about an issue, he steps down as chair of the faculty meeting and speaks as a member of the Faculty. President Marx agreed to follow this procedure. The President noted that he has asked Professor Lyle McGeoch, the parliamentarian, to sit near him at the meetings, so as to advise him on matters of parliamentary procedure. President Marx noted that he is concerned that many faculty members, particularly assistant professors, have been reticent to enter into conversation and said that all voices should contribute to the governing process of the College.

President Marx informed the Committee that he and Dean Call planned to meet with tenure-track assistant professors later in the evening. They said that they would encourage the assistant professors to voice their views at meetings of the Faculty, but would also offer the option of having them come to collective views, which the President and Dean could report. Some members agreed that meeting with the assistant professors was a positive step, and all agreed that having greater participation at the faculty meetings is necessary. Professor Hunt noted that the College has a bias against forming a caucus of faculty members to put forth particular positions and warned the President and Dean that some members of the Faculty might view their meeting with junior faculty members in this light. She said that assistant professors should be encouraged to speak out and that senior members of the Faculty are interested in what they have to say.

The President agreed with the concerns, but said that he welcomed a meeting with the tenure-track assistant professors to hear their views on proposals about how they can best be served in evaluation and feedback. He hopes that the assistant professors will be encouraged to speak for themselves at faculty meetings, rather than having a situation in which senior members of the Faculty are left to assume what their junior colleagues might find helpful. Only with this fuller participation can the Faculty as a whole decide how to fulfill consistently its responsibilities of evaluating and mentoring tenure-track colleagues.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

The members next reviewed nine course proposals. They approved seven proposals and voted six in favor and zero opposed to forward them to the Faculty. The Dean agreed to contact the relevant department chairs regarding questions raised about the remaining two proposals.

After going over the criteria for awarding Mellon 8 Summer Research and Semester Leave grants, the Committee reviewed applications for these stipends. Two Semester Leave proposals and three Summer Research Stipend proposals from Amherst will be forwarded to the Mellon 8 deans, who will work with an external review committee to make the final selections. At the end of that round of consideration, in mid-December, approximately ten of a total of sixteen leave proposals (two from each of the eight schools) and about sixteen of twenty-four summer stipend proposals (three from each of the eight schools) will be funded by the Mellon grant. After deciding which Semester Research Leave proposals to put forward, the Committee agreed to continue its evaluation of the Summer Research Stipend proposals at its October 25 meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 6 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Wednesday, October 6, 2004

(Amended October 14, 2004)

The sixth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, October 6, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

Based on feedback received at the October 5 meeting of the Faculty, the Committee discussed the two motions concerning reappointment and revised them to read as follows:

Revised Motion One: (to become effective in the academic year 2005–2006, to guide departments in their evaluation of candidates’ scholarship or creative growth and to inform Committee of Six deliberations, at Faculty Handbook, III., D., 4., p. 20, amend the first sentence as follows:

In preparation for recommendations concerning reappointment, the department will gather evidence concerning teaching effectiveness, scholarly or creative growth, and other contributions to the life of the College.

and, at Faculty Handbook, III., D., 4., p. 21, immediately after the first paragraph, add the following new paragraph):

The departmental evaluation of scholarly or creative growth should draw upon take into account any or all of the following: published or work, publicly presented work, and on projects currently under way, and planned plans for future projects.

Revised Motion Two: (to become effective in the academic year 2005–2006, to guide departments in their evaluation of candidates and to inform Committee of Six deliberations, at Faculty Handbook, III., D., 4., p. 21, immediately after the new second paragraph (see Motion One) add the following new paragraph):

Candidates for reappointment will each submit a letter to their department/s by December 1. Candidates should address their teaching experience at the College, the present state of their scholarship or creative work and their aims and plans for the future, and their engagement in College life. The letter will become part of the reappointment dossier, but will not be included in the tenure dossier.

The members voted six in favor, zero opposed on the substance of the revised motions and six in favor and zero opposed to forward the revised motions to the Faculty.

The Committee next discussed the charge to the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP) and approved it. The Dean noted that the final CAP charge, as well as a letter and a memo from the CAP requesting a short planning document from departments and programs, would be sent to the entire Faculty the next day.

The Committee turned to motions proposed by the College Council to amend the Code of Conduct. They revised the motion by suggesting that the word “normal” be removed from the motion as follows:

7a. College Council Motion #3 to add the following language in the Student Handbook,
p. 29, to the third paragraph under “Academic Dishonesty”:

2. In cases in which the instructor suspects that a student may have committed an act of academic dishonesty and, after speaking to the student, feels that adjudication is necessary to determine the student’s guilt or innocence, the instructor will refer the case to the Dean for Student Conduct. In such instances, since the instructor and the student disagree on the facts of the case–that is, on whether an act of academic dishonesty occurred–the Dean for Student Conduct will send the case to the Committee on Discipline. In all cases in which the Committee on Discipline finds a student guilty of an act of academic dishonesty, the Committee will determine all penalties except for course penalties, which are imposed at the discretion of the instructor. The normal recommended course penalty for an act of academic dishonesty, whether or not it is adjudicated by the Committee on Discipline, is failure in the course. The Committee may recommend a particular course penalty to the instructor, but the imposition of such a penalty is at the discretion of the instructor.

7b. College Council Motion #3 to add the following language in the Student Handbook, p. 30, under the “Penalties” section, under the paragraph on “Course Penalties”:

Course Penalties: Acts of cheating, plagiarism or other forms of academic dishonesty should result in a student’s receiving a failing grade. The normal recommended penalty for an act of academic dishonesty is failure for the course, though grade penalties are always imposed solely at the discretion of the instructor. The instructor, after consultation with the Dean for Student Conduct, has the discretion to decide whether the grade should be imposed for a particular assignment or for the whole course. All such acts will be part of the student’s disciplinary record in the Dean of Students’ Office official record, and may, at the judgment of the Committee on Discipline, be recorded on the student’s transcript. The Committee on Discipline or the Dean for Student Conduct may impose other penalties as well–from disciplinary probation to expulsion, depending on the seriousness of the offense and the student’s previous record.

The Dean agreed to forward the revision to Dean Lieber and Professor Moore.

The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, October 4, 2004

(Amemded October 14, 2004)

The fifth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, October 4, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

The Committee turned to personnel matters.

Dean Call informed the members that Mary McMahon, Director of Curricular Computing Services, and Mark Fiegenbaum, Associate in the Technical Services Department of the Frost Library, have agreed to serve on the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP). He requested that Ms. McMahon and Mr. Fiegenbaum be invited as guests to the October 5 meeting of the Faculty, as the charge to the CAP will be discussed. The Committee agreed that they should be invited.

The Dean told the Committee that Professor Heidi Gilpin; Sherre Harrington, Librarian of the College; Professor Joseph Kushick; John Manly, Codirector of Systems, Network, and Telecommunications Systems; Marian Matheson, Director of Institutional Research; Professor Lyle McGeoch (Chair); Marlene Merzbach, Desktop Computer Support Associate; and Professor Jessica Reyes have agreed to serve on the Search Committee for the Director of Information Technology. The Dean has asked the Association of Amherst Students to propose two students for membership on the search Committee and is awaiting these nominations.

The members discussed whether the Committee should nominate colleagues for Baylor University’s Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teaching. After some conversation, the members decided that a process does not exist for making such a selection, and there is not time to develop one before the award’s November deadline.

President Marx next made a series of announcements. He told the Committee that he attended a meeting of the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) presidents on September 29, and that they voted down proposals, put forward by NESCAC coaches and athletics departments, to add a ninth football game to the schedule and to have the athletic season begin earlier than it currently does.

The President informed the members that he has asked several College departments to explore ways to re-think how Amherst uses electronic communication vehicles, particularly the World Wide Web and email, with an eye to reducing the amount of paper we use in communicating routine business.

Conversation turned to a letter sent to the Committee by Professor of Fine Arts Joel Upton (appended). Discussion focused on Professor Upton’s suggestion that the “CAP is clearly impoverished by its notable exclusion of any faculty in the disciplines of music, theater, and the fine arts.” Several members commented that there probably should be a member of the arts faculty on the CAP, while others raised concerns relating to where the limits of such arguments might be found and the already substantial size of the CAP.

Dean Call noted that faculty members on the CAP were recommended by the Committee of Six and carefully chosen to achieve a degree of balance among the academic disciplines and divisions (humanities, social sciences, sciences) of the College, keeping in mind that the overall size of the committee, including staff and students, should not become unwieldy. President Marx acknowledged that adding a colleague from music, theater, or fine arts (and many other disciplines) would no doubt enrich the CAP. He also agreed that the work of the committee would be more easily sustained with its present size. Some members noted that, indeed, humanities faculty members (Professors Cobham-Sander, Griffiths, Rabinowitz, and Servos) already constitute half of the faculty portion of the committee and that to add someone from the arts would create an even greater disproportion of people from the humanities.

Professor Damon pointed out that the CAP is charged with taking a broad institutional view, and its members will serve as representatives of the Faculty, rather than of their particular disciplines, and the members agreed. The President agreed that faculty members serving on the CAP, as on all committees, should represent the interests of the College as a whole and not one constituency. The Dean reminded the Committee that the interests of individual disciplines will be well represented through other aspects of the deliberative process, including input from the departmental planning documents and the President’s Initiative Fund projects. Most members of the Committee of Six recommended that the membership of the CAP not be changed.

The Committee returned to a discussion of the pros and cons of various forms of the President’s involvement as a member of the CAP. As a board member, faculty member, member of the CAP, and President, he is structurally embedded in the process of planning and setting priorities. Professor Damon commented that none of his official roles required his membership on the CAP. The President responded that membership on the committee would enable him to contribute his views to the discussion of the College’s future at a stage when the committee was considering a variety of views and setting priorities. It is his hope that a full and informed exchange of information and views in the CAP, which includes the President’s perspective, will increase the prospects for agreement and diminish the likelihood of any dislocation at the end of the CAP’s deliberations. Furthermore, by having him engaged in the process rather than simply receiving the recommendations, the Faculty will have an ongoing opportunity to shape his opinions, each other’s opinions, and the plan that is ultimately forwarded to the Board. The President asked if the members preferred that a faculty member serve as the cochair of the CAP, as had been the case with the Special Committee on the Amherst Education (SCAE). The members of the Committee of Six suggested that a cochairmanship was not a preferable model, and all recommended that the President remain as the single chair of the CAP.

In response to a question raised by Professor Stephen George with Assistant Dean Tobin about the nature of what is being kept confidential in the Committee of Six minutes, the Dean reviewed with the Committee categories of matters that have been kept confidential in the minutes this year, last year, and in years past and how the volume and style of the minutes have changed over time. He noted that, until last year, the Committee of Six meetings, typically, lasted for two hours. The Committee now, typically, meets for three hours, and the minutes are longer as a result. Dean Call said that the minutes of this year and last year are, perhaps, more detailed than they have been in the recent past. Professor Cheney noted that, in his experience, different recorders have had their own styles, and that the minutes have been both more detailed and less detailed than they are at present. The President said that he believes there should be a general principle of transparency when it comes to the minutes, although, naturally, personnel matters should remain confidential. He said that he will retain the option of keeping confidential minutes of conversations in which he seeks the Committee’s guidance and opinions, as he weighs options and/or formulates decisions. The Dean asked the members if they felt that discussion surrounding the drafting of motions should be included in the public minutes, and most members agreed that doing so would inform the Faculty and be helpful to them. The members reaffirmed that they will read the draft minutes with an eye toward disclosing as much information as possible, and the President and Dean agreed to be responsive to the Committee’s recommendations in this regard.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Cheney said that he feels that the Faculty needs to receive more information about the Dean of the Faculty search process. The President said that he would discuss the search at the October 5 meeting of the Faculty.

Professor Hunt noted that a fruitful discussion of the issue of how colleges can foster the development of Faculty as teachers and scholars over the course of their careers took place at an all-day workshop held October 2 at the Williams-owned retreat center. Members of the Committee of Six, Committee on Educational Policy, and Committee on Academic Priorities, the faculty deans, and their Williams counterparts discussed the achievements and lessons of the Mellon Foundation Faculty Career Enhancement Grant, which was shared by the two schools and is now in its third and final year. Dean Call participated with his counterparts at Wesleyan, Bates, and Williams in comparing the programs and practices of these schools, and faculty panels and discussion groups addressed the challenge of maintaining teaching quality and research productivity over time.

Professor Hunt said that, on the topic of support for faculty research, discussion included the level of financial support offered for leaves. She wondered if the new Director of Institutional Research could be charged with gathering information on the level of leave support offered by peer institutions. Dean Call said that the Amherst Faculty’s desire for 100 percent sabbaticals was conveyed to him strongly that day, as it has been at other times. He noted that the topic is of great interest to him, as were a number of other ways of supporting scholarship that were discussed at the workshop. The President suggested that support for sabbaticals will be one of the issues examined by the CAP under the rubric of faculty scholarship. He noted that he is aware that the availability of outside funding has been decreasing in some disciplines and that he is concerned, though he noted that it would not be in the best interest of the Faculty or the College to add disincentives for applying for outside funding. President Marx said that 100 percent sabbaticals should be assessed in the context of various forms of support for and evaluation of scholarship.

Professor Hunt noted that course release for serving on committees and as chair was also discussed at the workshop and is an issue that she believes should be considered at Amherst. The Dean said that the initial feedback he received from a number of attendees at the meeting was that they prefer the Amherst system of not allowing course release for these administrative and governance duties, particularly since chairs at Amherst do not have the burdens that are imposed by many institutions that offer course release in exchange for serving as chair. Some members agreed that these trade-offs made course release an unattractive option. Professor Hunt said colleagues have suggested to her that they are interested in course release in exchange for serving on major committees. Some members agreed that course release for committee work should be considered, or, at the very least, that the absence of it should be factored in when evaluating Amherst’s overall support for faculty research, especially at the senior level. The President expressed concern that adding such release time might adversely affect the Amherst culture of shared service, equity, and commitment to teaching.

The Committee continued its review of the pilot project for a colloquium series on “The Constitution and the Imagining of America” and the pilot project for a colloquium series on “The American Founding.” The President reviewed with the members the decisions made at the September 27 meeting. It was agreed that both colloquia should continue for three years, and the terms and criteria of review were established. In addition, the members concluded that the colloquia should be placed, administratively, within a broad colloquium-like program, if that is developed over the next several years. The members agreed that substantive engagement among alumni, faculty, and students should be encouraged. President Marx and the Committee discussed how all colloquia, including those under review at present, should be provided for under a College-wide umbrella that could ensure support and consistent programmatic and financial oversight by the College. After some discussion, the members agreed that, for purposes of supporting these two colloquia while the details of a possible broader program are being developed, the College will provide both the colloquium series on “The Constitution and the Imagining of America” and the colloquium series on “The American Founding” with up to $20,000 a year in funding annually for the next three years and will allow those running the colloquia to secure outside funds that do not exceed $20,000 annually. Those running the colloquia will be required to submit an annual budget to the Dean.

Discussion turned to motions proposed by the College Council to amend the Code of Conduct. Some members suggested that a sentence in the already approved language of motion one is awkward and should be corrected. This language, which now appears in the Student Handbook (p. 20) in the last paragraph before the Statement on Intellectual Responsibility, currently reads as follows: “Any student’s behavior alleged to violate the principles of the Honor Code, or found in rules of behavior elsewhere in the Student Handbook or in other documents of the College, will be thoroughly investigated in a manner that protects the rights of all parties to the issue.”

Turning to motion two, the members requested that the College Council provide more of a rationale for advocating that, in cases of alleged academic dishonesty, a student selected at random from the sophomore, junior, or senior classes would replace one of the elected student members on the hearing panel. Some members of the Committee conjectured that the intent was to spread involvement and investment in the Code of Conduct to a broader range of students than those on the panel. Some members felt that the proposed mechanism was unlikely to achieve the desired result.

The members reviewed motion three and voted six in favor and none opposed to forward the motion to the Faculty and six in favor and none opposed on the substance of the motion.

The Committee reviewed motion four and agreed to ask Dean Lieber to provide more information about the roles of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer and the Dean of Student Conduct.

Conversation turned to the perception that the Faculty remains concerned about the process that the CAP is about to undertake. The President noted that any planning process is likely to be unsettling, particularly at its start, and expressed his hope that the campus will be reassured and engaged by a deliberative and inclusive process. He reiterated that he has no plans to impose any particular outcome, nor would it be possible to impose an outcome on the Faculty. Professor Hunt suggested that some faculty members may feel that the process, as outlined, is vague and amorphous. The President responded that he is asking the Amherst community to make explicit and conscious choices about its future, and that the further framing of that effort will and should emerge from ongoing deliberation.

Dean Call then noted that the SCAE Visual Understanding Working Group has submitted its report to the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) and has disbanded. The Dean said that the report should now be sent to the Faculty. The members agreed that the CEP was the most appropriate body to consider the report and send it to the Faculty.

The Dean next reminded the members that last year’s Committee of Six agreed to charge a new Committee on Study Abroad. Professor Townsend suggested that study abroad falls within the curriculum and is, therefore, within the purview of the CEP. It was noted that the Registrar serves as gatekeeper when it comes to authorizing study at study-abroad programs and in matters relating to credit, and departments play a role as well. Professor Hunt said that she failed to see why a new standing committee was needed in this case, since it was largely up to individual departments whether or not to award credit toward their major for courses taken abroad. What good would an additional administrative layer do? The members suggested that the Global Comprehension Working Group forward its report to the CEP.

The meeting adjourned at 6 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, September 27, 2004

(Amended September 30, 2004)

The fourth meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

Corrections to the minutes of the second and third meetings were given to the Dean. The minutes of the second and third meetings were approved.

The meeting began with further discussion of the charge to the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP). Some members wondered whether the FTE allocation process should be a part of the charge. The President said that the CAP will not allocate any particular additional FTEs that may be approved, as that process is within the purview of the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP). However, as part of its consideration of the College’s educational needs, the CAP, in consultation with the CEP, will recommend some priorities for the allocation of new FTEs. Resulting justifications for expanding the Faculty could include strengthening existing programs, diminishing class size, increasing faculty diversity or addressing the faculty age distribution, fostering new forms of pedagogy or interdisciplinary efforts, meeting particular student needs, enhancing First-Year Seminars or experiential learning, and other possible initiatives. The CAP will not deliberate on these issues relevant to FTEs in isolation, President Marx noted. The Committee’s process will be informed by discussions with the CEP, the Special Committee on the Amherst Education (SCAE) working groups, President’s Initiative Fund projects, and the departmental planning documents, among other sources. President Marx informed the members that he plans to begin this overview conversation at the October Board meeting with an open two-hour discussion among Trustees, the Committee of Six, the CAP, the CPR, and the CEP of what might justify FTE expansion. The President stressed that it is not his intention to weaken the role of the CEP, but rather to build on and learn from the experience of its members through a more general discussion of how to marshal, develop, and deploy the College’s Faculty.

Professor Cheney next asked the President once again whether the Committee of Six is the appropriate body to draft the charge to the CAP. He feels that the charge should, perhaps, come from President Marx. The President explicated his position on this matter. He contended that, on many levels—as a board member, a faculty member, a member of the CAP, and as President—he is structurally imbedded in the process of planning and setting priorities. He went on to suggest that the planning process and its success will depend upon the engagement of the entire Amherst College community, and, therefore, refinement of the charge should come through the College’s governance structures, in particular its committee process, as overseen by the Committee of Six. Some members asked if Presidents had charged previous committees of this type. The Dean said that recent precedent has varied. The Special Committee on the Amherst Education was charged by the Committee of Six in 2002; the President’s Campaign Planning Group was charged by the President in 1994; and the Priorities Planning Committee was charged by the Chairman of the Board and the President in 1992. After further discussion of who should charge the CAP, the Committee concluded that the President, after consultation with the Committee of Six, will charge the CAP. The President, the Dean, and the members revised the draft charge and agreed on the following language, which will be discussed with the Faculty at its meeting on October 5:

Charge to the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP)

The Committee on Academic Priorities is charged by the President after consultation with the Committee of Six to deliberate with the campus community to develop proposals to meet the academic needs of the College over the next decade and beyond. The Committee is asked to submit its recommendations to the Committee of Six in December 2005 for consideration by the Faculty, in the understanding that the outcome of the discussion will inform the stated goals of a comprehensive fundraising campaign and be a resource for guiding institutional planning.

Within the College’s continual process of planning and self-assessment, there have been and should be regular comprehensive reviews of priorities. A decade has passed since the last such review; proposals are maturing from numerous sources. This year the four working groups that are furthering the work of the Special Committee on the Amherst Education (SCAE) will report. Reviews of the administrative departments that support academic work are underway or completed. A report is awaited on the three-year Mellon Foundation Faculty Career Enhancement Grant. The projects under the President’s Initiative Fund have begun their work. To draw together these and other initiatives, we need a process of consultation and deliberation beyond what any standing committee can undertake, if we are to set academic priorities that will responsibly guide us over the next phase of our history.

Among the questions that the Committee might address are: Is the education that the College offers effective for the students it currently admits and for those it may wish to admit in the next decade and beyond? Is Amherst keeping pace with technological and other developments in research and teaching? In light of the Trustees’ stated willingness to consider an expansion of the Faculty, in what areas can we justify such an expansion, and serving what needs? If there should be an increase in support for scholarship, what form(s) should that support take? How can we attract outstanding faculty members and foster their development over the course of a career?

In addition to soliciting the views of faculty, students, and staff, the Committee should consult with the governing committees of the College, academic departments, the SCAE working groups, the Advisory Committee for Personnel Policies (ACPP), the Association of Amherst Students (AAS), and other groups organized to address academic areas and institutional needs. The Committee is charged to consider as well the practices and ideas of peer institutions.

The Committee turned next to reviewing two draft motions regarding revisions to the procedures for reappointment. If approved, they will become effective in the academic year 2005-2006. Professor Damon wondered how useful a candidate’s description of his or her research plans (one of the provisions of motion two) would be to his or her department(s) and to the Committee of Six. She questioned whether departments had sufficient expertise to provide useful guidance about the plans of candidates who may focus their work in areas in which their colleagues have little experience or knowledge. Another worry, she said, is that an outline of scholarly plans at the time of reappointment could, at the time of tenure review, be used to penalize those candidates who don’t complete their plans and might render the tenure process more mechanical than it should be. President Marx responded that he understands Professor Damon’s concerns, but he is confident in the Faculty’s ability to provide appropriate and useful advice to junior colleagues about their research and research plans and is equally certain that the Committee of Six would not manacle itself to an approach that is formulaic. Some members suggested that a means of addressing future constraints is to have the candidates’ summary of their scholarly plans, teaching experiences, and service to the College included in the reappointment dossier only. The Committee and the President agreed.

Elaborating further, the President said that the purpose of the revisions is to enable the department, the Dean, and the Committee of Six to offer feedback about candidates’ pedagogical and scholarly trajectory at the time of reappointment. The changes are also designed to stimulate departments to become more involved in junior faculty members’ scholarship and in mentoring assistant professors. Professor Tawa pointed out that it is particularly important to have a consistent means to guide this process, since chairs rotate so frequently. The Dean added that the revisions are not meant to raise the bar for reappointment, but to help assistant professors who are going through this process, by providing them with direction and guidance. The Committee then voted six to zero in favor of the substance of each motion and six to zero to forward them to the Faculty. They read as follows:

Motion One: (to become effective in the academic year 2005-2006, to guide departments in their evaluation of candidates’ scholarship and to inform Committee of Six deliberations, at Faculty Handbook, III., D., 4., p. 21, immediately after the first paragraph, add the following new paragraph):

The departmental evaluation of scholarly growth should draw upon published or publicly presented work and on projects under way and planned.

Motion Two: (to become effective in the academic year 2005-2006, to guide departments in their evaluation of candidates and to inform Committee of Six deliberations, at Faculty Handbook, III., D., 4., p. 21, immediately after the new second paragraph (see Motion One) add the following new paragraph):

Candidates for reappointment will each submit a letter to their department/s by December 1. Candidates should address their teaching experience at the College, the present state of their scholarship and their aims and plans for the future, and their engagement in College life. The letter will become part of the reappointment dossier, but will not be included in the tenure dossier.

Proposed new language (in bold) in the Faculty Handbook, III, D., 4., pp. 20-21

4. Reappointment Procedures

In preparation for recommendations concerning reappointment, the department will gather evidence concerning teaching effectiveness, scholarly growth, and other contributions to the life of the College.

Evaluations of teaching are to be requested of all students from every course, including every honors and special topics course taught by an untenured faculty member. These evaluations are to be signed and are normally to be solicited in essay format in all classes in the final week of each semester on a form to be devised by the instructor in collaboration with the department. After the submission of grades they will be made available to the instructor without the names of the respondents. In addition, all departments will be required to have solicited from all students confidential letters of evaluation at the time of reappointment review (Voted by the Faculty, October 1998). All student evaluations of teaching collected for purposes of reappointment are to be submitted to the Committee of Six with the department's recommendation (Voted by the Faculty, May 1995).

The departmental evaluation of teaching effectiveness should draw upon a representative range of teaching activities in addition to evidence described above. Evaluation should derive from, but need not be limited to, conversations about courses with some members of the department; attendance by some members of the department at a number of class meetings at mutually agreed upon times; and assessment, by the candidate with at least one senior member of the department, of the accomplishments of at least one of the candidate’s courses at the end of a semester (Voted by the Faculty, May 1999).

The departmental evaluation of scholarly growth should draw upon published or publicly presented work and on projects under way and planned.

Candidates for reappointment will each submit a letter to their department/s by December 1. Candidates should address their teaching experience at the College, the present state of their scholarship and their aims and plans for the future, and their engagement in College life. The letter will become part of the reappointment dossier, but will not be included in the tenure dossier.

The Committee voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve the faculty meeting agenda.

Professor Townsend commented that he attended a September 23 meeting held by the SCAE working group on writing instruction. He said that he is impressed with the group’s work and working paper and feels that the structure of having a liaison between the group and the CEP has been effective. In a related matter, the Dean noted that Dean Snively recently completed a self-study of the Writing Center that will be shared with the CEP.

The Committee continued its review of the pilot project for a colloquium series on “The Constitution and the Imagining of America” and the pilot project for a colloquium series on “The American Founding.”

The members agreed that both colloquia should continue for three years, at which point (fall 2007) a review would once again take place. As the College, over the next several years, may develop additional colloquium-like programs that will bring students and alumni/ae together for the purpose of educational enrichment and growth, the Committee agreed that these two colloquia will be evaluated in the context of related opportunities. Successful programs will present a variety of intellectual perspectives and foster the free exchange of ideas. The coherence and continuity of the intellectual program, the availability of the program to the campus as a whole, the range of voices represented, and the opportunities for intellectual growth provided will be the focal points of the process used to evaluate all of these programs, including the colloquia at hand, the Committee noted.

The members agreed to address at their next meeting issues relating to how the colloquia should be funded.

The members turned to committee assignments.

The Dean informed the members that, in answer to Professor Tawa’s question about the number of Korean students from the same high school who are in the first-year class, Tom Parker, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, has reported that there are five first-year students from Daewon Foreign Language School. He noted that they are all extremely talented students and that Daewon is considered to be one of the two best high schools in Korea. All students at the school are expected to be fluent in three languages, and the math curriculum is highly advanced. Dean Parker said that the biggest school group (seven students) in the first-year class is from Hunter College High School. He noted that the admission office does not take school groups, state counts, or country counts into account when making its decisions.

The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, September 20, 2004

(Amended September 30, 2004)

The third meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3 p.m. on Monday, September 20, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder. Professor Dizard arrived at the meeting at 4:30 p.m., as he was returning from a conference.

Corrections to the minutes of the first and second meetings were given to the Dean.

The Dean introduced Attorney James Wallace and his colleague Rene Hackett. On an annual basis, Mr. Wallace is invited to speak with the Committee prior to personnel discussions to provide general legal advice related to the tenure and reappointment processes.

The Dean thanked Mr. Wallace and Ms. Hackett, who left the meeting at 4 p.m.

Dean Call next made a series of announcements. He asked the members to hold Wednesdays, from 2 to 4 p.m., as a potential extra meeting time during the spring semester. The members agreed.

President Marx informed the members that he has been rethinking the question of how best to consider, during the upcoming process of College-wide planning and setting priorities, needs surrounding support for scholarship. Among the areas potentially to be considered in this regard are journal editorships; ways, including promotion, of encouraging scholarly engagement after tenure; post-docs; and fully supported leaves. The President said that he understands the Committee of Six’s desire to prevent the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP) from getting ahead of itself and from placing one issue above others, but he feels strongly that work should begin on this issue, so as to inform the CAP’s deliberative process. He said that delaying consideration until December or January will disadvantage this issue, as information might not get to the CAP in time to be included in their deliberations. Early work in investigating the area of support for scholarship can follow the model of the Special Committee on the Amherst Education (SCAE) working groups and departmental planning documents, the finding of which will feed into the CAP process, the President said.

Professor Cheney suggested that departments be asked to consider policies and programs, including promotion, that will help to encourage long-term scholarship. Professor Damon said that this is a particularly appropriate solution, as it will solicit information on ways to support scholarship and will provide balance to the planning documents, which, as currently outlined in draft form, focus a great deal on needs surrounding teaching. The members, the President, and the Dean agreed.

The President next reported back to the Committee about the capabilities of the online campus directory. Stacey Schmeidel, Director of Public Affairs, has offered him a good deal of information and shared the following mechanics: The directory’s URL is http://www.amherst.edu/people/. To search for information about faculty or staff, one clicks on Faculty/Staff Advanced Search. For student information, one clicks on Student Advanced Search. You can then search according to any of the fields on this page. If, for example, you wanted to see all the Michaels on the faculty, you would type “Michael” in the First Name field, then press Search. If you wanted to see everyone in the English department, you would type “English” in the Department Name field and press Search. If you wanted to see everyone who works in Converse, you would type Converse in the Office field. This information is printable. Any of these advanced searches will display a list of people with names, photos, and other directory information. If you print this page, you will get what you see on the screen, including photos. The photos are small, but if you click on the person’s name in this list, you will get the individual directory entry, which includes an ID-size photo. This page is printable. Faculty members have an additional option. Instead of clicking Faculty/Staff Advanced Search or Student Advanced Search, they can click the button that says Course Search, and then log in. Links to courses that the faculty member is teaching will appear. If the course link is clicked, a list of students in that course, along with photos, names, email addresses, etc., will appear. This page is printable, but the photos printed in the list are small. If one clicks on an individual’s name, the individual directory entry, which includes an ID-size photo, appears. This page is printable. Information Technology staff members are developing ways to print these lists (course lists, or lists created using an advanced search) so that the photos will be displayed at their full size. The President reiterated that members of the Faculty and staff have the option not to have their pictures available online.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Tawa asked if issues surrounding equal treatment and definition for Senior Lecturers and Lecturers will be discussed by the Committee. The Dean said that he plans to bring this topic to the Committee this year.

The members turned to committee assignments.

The President noted that the following members of the Faculty will serve on the search committee for the Dean of the Faculty: Professors Leah Hewitt, Jerome Himmelstein, Kannan Jagannathan (Chair), Susan Niditch, Helen Leung, and Andrew Parker.

Turning to a discussion of National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Stipends, the Dean noted that applications by Amherst faculty members have been down for a number of years. He said that he is interested in determining why this is the case. Dean Call wondered if the reason might be that the College does not offer sufficient support during the application process. He said that he has spoken to Robyn Piggott, Director of Foundation and Corporate Relations, who is enthusiastic about assisting faculty members with their applications for outside funding. The Dean said that Ms. Piggott has agreed to do some research on the rate of application for outside funding among Amherst faculty members in relation to peer institutions. Professor Dizard said that, as a member of the 1996 ad hoc Advisory Committee on Research Funding at Amherst, which was charged with investigating ways in which the Faculty Research Award Program (FRAP) could better serve faculty research needs, he was surprised to learn that many faculty members were unaware of the program. This was true of both assistant professors and senior members of the Faculty, he said. Professor Dizard wondered if information about FRAP could be promulgated more effectively. Professor Cheney suggested including the recipients of FRAP grants, and information about their awards, in the Amherst Notes.

Professor Cheney next asked the President whether the Committee of Six is the appropriate body to draft the charge to the CAP. He wondered whether the charge should, perhaps, come from President Marx. The President said that, since he is in the unique position of being both a member of the Faculty and of the Board of Trustees, and because he is a member of the CAP and will be a part of the process of planning and setting priorities on other fronts, as well, he feels that it is best if the charge goes through the regular consultative committee process. He noted that he wants the educational needs of the College to drive every aspect of this process, which will be used to determine Amherst’s academic needs during the next decade and beyond.

Professor Cheney said that the current draft charge to the CAP leaves a number of important questions unanswered. He asked the President why he feels that Amherst should engage in this review and goal-setting process at this moment. President Marx responded that it is important that colleges regularly assess where they are and where they are headed. The upcoming campaign is another driving force. It is critical that educational priorities inform fundraising goals, he said. Professor Dizard noted that the process of identifying needs at the College has been going on for some time, to some degree in response to the Trustees’ signals that the Board is willing to entertain proposals to expand the Faculty. He offered the establishment and work of the SCAE as an example of recent activity in the areas of self-assessment and goal-setting.

The members discussed the charge further and agreed that, after receiving feedback from colleagues, the Committee will finalize the draft and charge the CAP.

The Committee turned to drafting two motions regarding revisions to the procedures for reappointment. If approved, they would become effective in the academic year 2005-2006.

The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, September 13, 2004

(Amended September 27, 2004)

The second meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, September 13, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

Corrections to the minutes of the first meeting were given to the Dean.

The President began the meeting by informing the members that he would like to invite Marian Matheson, the College’s new Director of Institutional Research, to attend meetings of the Faculty as a guest without vote for the foreseeable future, in accordance with the relevant provision in the Faculty Handbook (IV, R., 2., a., pp. 77–78).

The President noted that, since Ms. Matheson will be conducting research in areas that span the College and will be working with academic departments and faculty committees, it is necessary for her to be informed fully regarding issues before the Faculty. The Committee voted six in favor and none opposed to invite Ms. Matheson to attend meetings of the Faculty as a guest without vote. The Dean noted that, at a future meeting of the Committee of Six, he plans to review with the members the criteria that have been used to determine whether members of the College community may attend faculty meetings, with or without vote. The Faculty Handbook will be revised this year, and the Faculty may want to consider changes.

With sadness, President Marx next informed the members that, on the weekend of September 25 and 26, the College will remove a mature “pin” oak tree located on the Valentine Quad. A number of tests have revealed that cracks in the tree have made it unstable, despite the College’s best efforts over the past few years to save the tree. A new “pin” oak tree will soon be planted in the same location as the old one. It will be dedicated to Nora Moore ’07, who was killed in a car accident on April 24, 2004.

Turning to the progress of the working groups that are furthering the work of the Special Committee on the Amherst Education (SCAE), the President said that the writing and quantitative skills groups will soon be reporting to the CEP, and the visual understanding working group has completed its report and disbanded. The experiential and global comprehension working groups continue to deliberate. The President said that, in addition to gaining insights into experiential learning through the explorations of the working group, he will make use of a Mellon grant to collaborate with two consultants to consider experiential learning possibilities for Amherst students and faculty members, with reference to the strengths and weaknesses of such programs at Amherst and elsewhere.

President Marx next noted that he is looking forward to meeting with the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Parking. He said that construction, which will take place over the next four years, will necessitate that parking be eliminated on a large part of the Quad. This situation, together with the use of the upper tennis courts for parking, should allow for an array of options to be considered for meeting long-term parking needs and also addressing environmental, aesthetic, cost, and safety concerns. Even if parking is not restored to the Quad, emergency, handicap access, and quick drop-off parking will have to be permitted there, and safe and proximate parking for those who work on or near the Quad will have to be provided.

Conversation turned to the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP). President Marx informed the members that the faculty members of the CAP met for the first time on September 8, and that students, a staff member, and a trustee-appointee will soon be selected for the committee. He said that he expects that, in assessing needs and recommending priorities, the CAP will solicit views from the Faculty as a whole, from individual faculty members, and from groups of faculty members, as well as from administrators and staff. In addition to the departmental planning documents, the committee will consider the reports of the SCAE working groups and will also be informed by the experience of the groups working under the President’s Initiative Fund, which are in various stages of planning and implementation.

The President noted that the CAP will not encroach on any of the functions of the Committee of Six, CEP, CPR, or other standing committees, and will instead rely upon these committees’ advice in their particular areas of focus. President Marx said that the role of the CAP is to formulate recommendations to the Faculty and the Board of Trustees, based on a broad view of subjects and time-frame. Any recommendations from the CAP for changes in policies and procedures will come to the Faculty for a vote through the usual committee structures. Similarly, the proposed allocation of any additional faculty FTEs will be vetted by the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP).

The President informed the members that, in response to a question posed by Professor Guttmann at the September 6 meeting of the Faculty, he checked with the Office of Public Affairs about printing an updated Who’s Here directory of Faculty and staff. He was told that this would be an expensive proposition and that such a publication becomes outdated quite quickly. President Marx has asked Public Affairs to explore whether information available through the new online campus directory is sortable and printable and allows Faculty and staff the option of not being pictured.

The President next discussed with the Committee his desire to work with the members of the Health Professions Committee to consider ways of identifying and supporting students who might benefit from taking the courses required for pre-med students on a somewhat delayed schedule. Rather than taking all or some of the most challenging pre-med courses in their first and second years at the College, one possibility might be that such students could be advised to focus their first two years on adjusting to the rigors of academics at Amherst, maturing, and gaining preparation for their pre-med work. Pre-med courses could then be taken in the third and/or fourth year. A fifth year (at no cost to the student) could possibly be offered by the College as an option for completing this work. The President said that those students who struggle under the present system might be more likely to succeed under this scenario, which would also allay the disillusionment and stress under which they often find themselves. The hope would be that the proposed system would also enhance the performance of these students. Professor Dizard noted that, by attending a post-bac program, some students basically undertake the program that the President described. President Marx agreed, but noted that economic barriers often prevent some students from gaining access to post-bac programs. Professor Cheney said that it is his hope that the quantitative working group will consider rethinking the sequence in which the pre-med courses are taught at Amherst and recommend alternatives for the pre-med tracks that currently exist.

The Dean left the meeting so the members and the President could discuss the upcoming search process for the position of Dean of the Faculty. President Marx informed the members that last year’s Committee of Six recommended that a national search for the Dean of the Faculty was most desirable. He asked if this year’s members agreed. Discussion revolved around the advantages and disadvantages of a national versus a solely internal search.

Some members argued that a national search could bring new ideas and diversity to campus and would send a message to the outside world that the College is open and inclusive. Such a search would also benefit an internal candidate, should one ultimately be selected, by eliminating all doubt that he or she is the best person for the position. Other members contended that a national search might attract career administrators who might find it difficult to work effectively in Amherst’s somewhat idiosyncratic governance structure. They noted that, since Amherst has a new President, new ideas and initiatives are already a priority, and there is not a need to seek an outside individual for reasons of encouraging change and innovation. On the other hand, a national search might produce a more diverse pool of applicants than might otherwise occur. Some members worried that a national search would require more time on the part of the members of the search committee and whether this time would be well spent.

It was agreed that, whether a national or internal search was undertaken, the search committee will undoubtedly expend a great deal of effort to attract the best possible pool for the position. Professor Cheney noted that, during previous searches for the Dean, search committees actively pursued candidates, particularly internal ones, who did not apply for the position. At the conclusion of this dialogue, the Committee agreed that a national search for the Dean of the Faculty should be undertaken.

The Dean returned to the meeting and made a series of announcements.

The Dean asked the members if a faculty meeting should be scheduled for November 2, as this is Election Day. The members decided that it would be best not to have a meeting.

Turning to the CAP, Dean Call noted that there has been some confusion about what the acronym stands for, as the Committee of Six minutes have included references to the Committee on Academic Planning and the Committee on Academic Priorities. The Dean clarified that the correct name is the latter.

The Dean discussed with the members the Amherst/Doshisha Faculty Exchange Program, which was established three years ago with the understanding that it would be reviewed this year. The program enables an Amherst faculty member to spend several weeks during the spring lecturing at Doshisha and brings a Doshisha faculty member to Amherst to do the same. The Dean informed the Committee that the program has been successful, and that the response from all involved has been enthusiastic. He told the Committee that the College selects the Amherst and Doshisha faculty members who participate and pays for both parts of the exchange at a cost of approximately $10,000 per year. Faculty members receive $2,500, plus a stipend for travel. The Committee agreed with the Dean’s proposal, which has the support of the senior administration, that the exchange be continued for five years, at which time it should be reviewed again.

Discussion turned to setting additional meeting dates for the Committee. After some discussion it was decided to set aside Wednesdays, from 4 to 6 p.m., and Fridays, from 3 to 5 p.m., in case additional meetings are needed.

The Dean next reported that, during the September 10 meeting of the chairs of academic departments and programs, a lively discussion ensued surrounding two documents that were distributed in draft form; they were the charge to the CAP and a request by the CAP to the academic departments for departmental planning documents that will inform the committee’s work. Dean Call said that the meeting was productive on many levels, particularly because the discussion informed the President, the Dean, and the members of the CAP, a number of whom were present at the meeting, about aspects of the process of planning and setting priorities that need to be explained more clearly. Since the meeting, the CAP has revised the draft of its request for the departmental planning documents and has written a cover letter that outlines how the CAP will function, placing the committee’s work within a context of existing procedures and faculty governance structures. These documents will soon be sent to the chairs and will, it is hoped, address their questions and allay their concerns. The Dean said that the CAP has made suggestions regarding its charge, which he will share with the Committee of Six at the September 20 meeting, at which time the members can offer input. The charge will also be discussed at the October 5 meeting of the Faculty. Following that meeting, the Committee of Six, taking into account faculty feedback, will finalize the charge.

Professor Damon expressed concern that the CAP appears to be “charging ahead” before it even has a charge, alluding to the CAP’s early request for planning documents. The President noted that the planning documents take five or six months to formulate and will play a vital role in informing the work of the CAP. Departments, the most basic governance units of the College, must begin working on these documents now, so as to join with the President’s Initiative Fund groups, SCAE working groups, and others to inform the deliberative process. The results of the efforts of all of these groups, and the committees, will feed into the CAP’s deliberations, the President said.

Professor Damon responded that she sees the logic in this approach, but she worries that the CAP will not have a role in shaping questions, instead having a structure thrust upon it. She noted that the questions to be asked may not be obvious, and that the CAP should be alive to considering many more questions than have been brought up thus far. The President responded that, during the first meeting with faculty members of CAP, he encouraged the committee to dream and to think in a “blue-sky” manner, at the same time acknowledging that there are some standard areas, financial aid, for example, that must be addressed by committees such as the CAP.

President Marx informed the members that he feels strongly that the upcoming process of planning and setting priorities must be deliberative and inclusive. He emphasized that this is an important moment at the College, and that the process in which Amherst is about to engage is critical. He said that he is conscious of the delicacy of his position, as it is his responsibility and desire to play an active role and to contribute his own perspective when considering the College’s future. At the same time, he believes strongly that the participation of the Faculty is critical to the success of efforts to plan and prioritize, and that it is impossible to impose change on the Faculty.

Professor Hunt said that she agrees with Professor Damon that, from the outset, it is critical that this process appear to be open-ended and that the questions that will be asked do not appear to have been formulated in advance. She advised the President that the place for his views to emerge is during the conversation, rather than before the conversation. The President agreed. Citing the efforts of the SCAE, the Dean noted that such a conversation has been underway at the College for two years. He said that the ball is in the Faculty’s court for informing the process for the upcoming campaign, i.e., the Faculty will be in the fortunate position of playing the key role in setting priorities and goals, just as they should.

Under “Questions from Committee Members,” Professor Tawa said that she has received questions about the fact that there are seven students in the first-year class who are graduates of the same school in Korea. The Dean said that he would ask Tom Parker, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, to comment. The Dean will report Dean Parker’s response to the Committee.

Professor Cheney said that he wondered if the November 1, 2004, deadline for proposals to the President’s Initiative Fund for Interdisciplinary Curricular Projects (PIF) disadvantages faculty groups that received PIF funding last year, when the deadline was March 1. As a result, there has been little time for such groups to make progress and, in particular, to reach conclusions about whether visitors are needed. The Dean noted that the deadline was changed so that all requests for visiting faculty members may be considered at the same time. Dean Call said that he feels that it is best that a consistent deadline be maintained for bringing visitors to the College, whether requests for such visitors emerge from a PIF proposal or through traditional departmental channels. The time needed to search for a visitor necessitates that the deadline be in November. Professor Dizard noted that even the early deadline would leave precious little time for advertising and screening candidates. Some flexibility ought to be built in to reflect the different paces of each initiative, he said. The President and the Dean agreed that they may consider making an exception to the November 1 deadline for this year only for requests for visitors in spring 2006 by groups that received funding from PIF in the first year.

Turning to the next item on the agenda, the Dean asked the members for nominations for the search committee for the Director of Information Technology.

The Dean next asked the members to consider how best to structure, and when to schedule, discussion of a review of reappointment, tenure, and promotion procedures at a faculty meeting. Professor Hunt asked the President why he wished to air this topic at this time. President Marx responded that the window for discussing these procedures is a narrow one, as it is not advisable to review procedures when the Committee is making decisions about cases. Since tenure deliberations begin in October and reappointment and promotion are in the spring, September seems like an ideal time to have this discussion, the President said. The President noted that a number of issues and concerns arose last year, and that he would like to discuss them with the Faculty in an effort to effect solutions. A discussion ensued concerning the options of having a committee-of-the-whole discussion on September 21 or waiting until October 5, which would give the Committee time to develop motions. The Dean distributed to the members a summary of the issues raised by last year’s Committee of Six and draft motions for the Committee to consider.

Discussion focused first on reappointment. The President informed the Committee that last year’s discussion of procedures led to a view that some greater emphasis should be placed on reviewing and offering feedback on candidates’ scholarship as part of the reappointment process, in particular to ensure a common understanding of plans and prospects that would help junior faculty members build their scholarship. President Marx said that the feeling of last year’s Committee was that departments should place greater emphasis on reviewing and vetting candidates’ scholarship and on sharing their assessment of the trajectory of the candidate in regard to scholarship, as they already do with teaching, with the Committee of Six. Some members felt that asking the candidate to submit a statement about his or her scholarship (much like the one that is optional for candidates for tenure) to the department and the Committee would be most helpful. The Dean emphasized that not only would this information inform the Committee’s deliberations, but it would be valuable for the candidate. The Dean noted that last year’s Committee recommended that, at the time of reappointment, the Dean should meet with reappointed faculty members to convey the Committee’s sense of the trajectory toward tenure and to offer feedback. Sharing a written record of the conversation would also be helpful to ensure that information is being communicated as clearly as possible, Dean Call said. Professor Dizard noted that the current language in the Faculty Handbook (III, D., 4., pp. 20-21) is vague when it comes to scholarship, while it is precise when it describes the evaluation of teaching. Professor Cheney said that he feels that it may be unfair to expect a faculty member in the early stages of his or her career to have a great deal of scholarship completed after being at Amherst for only two years. The Dean noted that advice even on scholarly plans could be useful, and also noted that the trend is for the College to hire scholars with some postdoctoral experience. Professor Damon added that, by the time of reappointment, faculty members will have been engaged with their scholarship for a substantial period.

In regard to tenure procedures, the President noted last year’s Committee of Six recommendation that the Committee review, earlier than current practice has dictated, the list of outside reviewers submitted by the departments and the lists submitted by candidates, as well as the letters themselves. Getting a sense of the range of the letters and the credentials of the reviewers early on in the tenure review process would provide sufficient time to ask departments to solicit additional reviewers should this step become necessary. Some members of last year’s Committee of Six recommended that the Committee, the President, and the Dean be allowed to secure additional external letters if a department does not provide new letters from new outside reviewers that address concerns expressed by the Committee. Professor Hunt suggested that emphasis should be placed on making clear to departments before letters are solicited the criteria for selecting outside reviewers, so that problematic letters can be avoided. The Dean distributed to the members last year’s letters to chairs of departments with tenure candidates, in which outside letters were solicited and such criteria were described. He said that the letter could be improved, and that he will focus attention on this section of the letter this year. The Dean noted that the potential will still exist for letters not to provide the breadth of information that the College seeks. Some members argued that it would be best to delay the discussion of this issue until the spring and to follow current procedures this fall, taking as early a reading as possible of external letters for all cases, retaining the option of requesting additional letters if necessary. Some members raised concerns that, since the President had experienced only one set of tenure cases at Amherst, the Faculty might perceive that it was too soon to be exploring procedural changes. They also worried that such efforts would be interpreted as a challenge to departmental judgement. The Dean cautioned that delaying a discussion of this matter with the Faculty might result in putting it off perpetually. Professor Dizard suggested that the Committee promise to put the discussion of the timing of the review of outside letters at the top of its agenda for the second semester. The members agreed that this step should be taken.

Discussion turned to issues surrounding promotion to Full Professor. The President noted that last year’s Committee was disturbed that promotion has become a pro forma process, typically being automatic when faculty members reach the sixth year of being an Associate Professor. The Committee agreed last year that it would be beneficial to make use of the full range (six to eight years following the tenure decision) in which promotion may currently take place. The members agreed that there are issues of concern surrounding promotion, stressing that promotion should provide an incentive for senior faculty members to continue to be productive and engaged following tenure. Professor Cheney noted that encouraging senior faculty development extends beyond promotion and suggested that the Committee broaden its discussion to consider possible ways to keep senior faculty members vital. The President agreed that the issue of promotion should be considered in this broader context of encouraging and supporting scholarship more generally. The members agreed that such a broad discussion should take place in the spring.

The Committee concluded that the most effective way to structure the discussion regarding these procedures is to have a faculty meeting on October 5 and for one of the agenda items at that meeting to be a discussion of reappointment. They agreed to continue their conversation and to formulate a motion at their September 20 meeting.

In the short time remaining, the Committee began its review of the pilot project for a colloquium series on “The Constitution and the Imagining of America” and the pilot project for a colloquium series on “The American Founding.” These colloquia were funded by the College for a probationary period of two years.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty

Minutes of the Meeting of Monday, September 6, 2004

(Amended September 27, 2004)

The first meeting of the Committee of Six for the academic year 2004–2005 was called to order by President Marx in his office at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, September 6, 2004. Present were Professors Cheney, Damon, Dizard, Hunt, Tawa, and Townsend, Dean Call, President Marx, and Assistant Dean Tobin, Recorder.

President Marx opened the meeting by welcoming the members back from the summer break. He informed them that his meetings last year with the Committee of Six were an invaluable resource for him, and said that he is looking forward to working with the new and returning members of this year’s committee.

Discussion turned to the Committee on Academic Priorities (CAP), the committee that will consider the priorities of the College in the coming decades, in areas ranging from financial aid, internships, and service to the curriculum, facilities needs, and increasing the number of FTEs. This process is also intended to inform the setting of fundraising priorities.

The President said that he is delighted that the following members of the Faculty and administration have agreed to serve on CAP: Professors Amrita Basu; Rhonda Cobham-Sander, Special Assistant to the President for Diversity; Frederick Griffiths, Associate Dean of the Faculty; Tekla Harms; Stanley Rabinowitz; John Servos; and Patrick Williamson. He said that the Advisory Committee for Personnel Policies, the senior administration, and the Association of Amherst Students will be asked to nominate a staff member, a trustee-appointee, and one or two students, respectively, to serve on the CAP. The President commented that, in making appointments to the CAP, he and last year’s Committee of Six focused on achieving the broadest representation possible from the academic disciplines and the divisions (humanities, social sciences, sciences) of the College. He said that he looks forward to receiving feedback from the Faculty about the CAP’s draft charge.

President Marx pointed out to the members that, while trustees often serve on campaign planning committees, and they have done so at Amherst in the past, members of the Board will not serve on the CAP. The President said that, in his discussions with the Board regarding the CAP, he stressed the importance of giving the campus autonomy in these early deliberations about the future of the College, and that the Board was supportive of this approach. In order to avoid a bifurcated consideration process, however, communication with the Trustees will be essential, President Marx believes. To keep communication open, the CAP will meet with a group of Trustees at regular intervals. The President will also work with the Committee of Six and the Faculty as a whole to keep the Board informed about the planning process.

President Marx said that the CAP will consider issues surrounding admission, such as educationally responsible ways to encourage diverse socioeconomic and international representation among applicants and accepted students; surrounding FTEs, such as fostering, inter alia, interdisciplinarity, the future growth of disciplines, and the First-Year Seminar Program and meeting departmental needs and the needs of a diverse student body; and surrounding the bunching or size of classes in relation to access to the open curriculum and effective and efficient use of College resources. The members of the CAP will also think about efforts to have students become more involved with community service, particularly through working in public education.

President Marx said that he will meet with the faculty members of the CAP on September 8 to discuss the departmental process of self-review and planning that will inform the College-wide discussion of priorities and goals. Dean Call commented that, at his fall meeting with department chairs on September 10, the chairs will discuss how their departments can best communicate their needs and aspirations to the CAP and, in particular, the planning documents that each department will prepare over the next five or six months.

The President next informed the members that it is his intention to discuss with the Faculty, at a faculty meeting early this fall, possible refinements of the processes of reappointment, tenure, and promotion. He noted that faculty review procedures were a major focus during last year’s Committee of Six meetings, and that conversations on this issue were shared with the Faculty through the Committee of Six minutes. He would like to move forward with this dialogue and to have the Faculty make some decisions this fall.

The President noted that last year’s Committee of Six had discussed placing greater emphasis on reviewing and offering feedback on candidates’ scholarship as part of the reappointment process; procedures surrounding the timing of the review of external letters and issues surrounding the balance of, and selection criteria for, outside reviewers; and how promotion to Full Professor can be more effective as a tool for encouraging and supporting faculty scholarship.

Professor Hunt noted that, in previous years, there have been discussions about standardizing the number of external letters for tenure candidates. She feels that it would be helpful if conversations about the balance and array of letters could take place before the department submits letters as part of a tenure case, rather than after. Dean Call said that he has had discussions on this topic with the chairs of departments that have tenure cases this year and will have similar conversations with department chairs each year.

Turning to the recently released U.S. News and World Report rankings, Professor Townsend said that, despite having disdain for the rankings, he is curious why Amherst was ranked so poorly (fifteenth) in the “faculty resources” category. He asked which issue most distinguished Amherst from its peers in this area, according to the publication. President Marx noted that the number of classes with under twenty students and the number with more than fifty students, subcategories within “faculty resources,” appear to be a contributing factor. The College’s new Director of Institutional Research is currently analyzing the U.S. News rankings, the President said, though the College must be careful to distinguish between useful and less relevant aspects of the rankings. He noted that he had already identified issues surrounding the bunching of classes and class size at the College as educationally significant. The President noted that Amherst has many large classes and does not make consistent distinctions as to what constitutes a seminar or small class. He said that underutilizing the 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. time slot for classes may limit access to the open curriculum and affect class size. He hopes to explore these issues, which may have FTE and resource implications, with the Faculty and with the CAP this year.

The Committee next considered three proposals for new courses that were reviewed and forwarded by the Committee on Educational Policy. The members voted five in favor, with one abstention, to forward the proposals to the Faculty.

Dean Call next welcomed new and returning members of the Committee of Six. He reviewed the fall agenda for the Committee, which includes discussion of the following: a charge for the new Advisory Committee on Study Abroad; issues surrounding the bunching of classes and grade inflation; procedures surrounding reappointment, tenure, and promotion; and review of the charge to the Committee on Academic Priorities.

The Dean next made a series of announcements. He reported that Elizabeth Cannon Smith, Alumni Secretary and Executive Director of Alumni and Parent Programs; Samuel Haynes, Assistant Dean of Students and Director of the Campus Center; Rosalind Hoffa, Associate Dean of Students and Director of the Career Center; Benson Lieber, Dean of Students (Chair); Rick Lopez, Assistant Professor of History; Gloria Monfrini ’07; Ryan Park ’05, Ethan Temeles, Associate Professor of Biology; and Janet Tobin, Assistant Dean of the Faculty, have agreed to serve on the Interterm Committee, which began meeting last spring. The President has charged the committee with evaluating Interterm and making suggestions for ways in which this period might be better structured.

President Marx said that he favors using Interterm, among other purposes, to bring more alumni who have expertise in particular fields to campus to engage students in conversation. This could be done under the umbrella of a theme, such as environmental studies. Professor Hunt suggested, and the President agreed, that, particularly while the College is considering ways to make Interterm a more educationally viable program, Amherst students should be encouraged to take advantage of Interterm programs offered by the other members of the Five-College Consortium. Dean Call noted that a successful Interterm program focusing on the versatility of the liberal arts was held at the College last year. It was geared toward first-years and sophomores who had not yet declared a major, and featured alumni/ae who majored in a variety of disciplines describing the intersection of their career paths and undergraduate studies. Professor Damon suggested that it might be valuable to provide housing for alumni/ae who participate in Interterm programs. Other members suggested that alumni/ae might be more comfortable at the Lord Jeffery Inn. Professor Cheney noted that it will be important for the Interterm Committee to assess how Interterm is currently being used. He said that many faculty members use Interterm as a time to accomplish research, and that it is important that they continue to be able to do so. The President said that he is aware that faculty members and students, particularly those writing theses, use Interterm as a time for conducting research, and that any Interterm initiatives that are implemented should not infringe on such research activity. He said that, while faculty members will not be required to teach during Interterm, the Interterm Committee may recommend opportunities for faculty members to participate in Interterm in ways that would be attractive to them and enriching for Amherst students.

He also informed the members that Robyn Piggott will once again serve as the recorder of the faculty minutes. He reminded the Committee that, during the first week of classes, Monday classes would be held on Wednesday and noted that coffee and tea will again be provided at Lewis-Sebring from 8:30 to 11:00 daily.

The Dean proposed that the Committee’s regular meeting time be 3 p.m. on Mondays, and the members agreed. He informed the members that it may become necessary for the Committee to schedule additional meetings, and the members agreed to discuss at their next meeting potential times for additional meetings. The Dean noted that there are three tenure cases this year and eleven reappointment cases.

The Dean then reviewed issues of Committee of Six confidentiality and attribution in the minutes, noting that the public minutes should be used as a guide in questions of whether matters could be shared with others.

Dean Call noted that the possible dates for faculty meetings this semester are September 21, October 5, October 19, November 2, November 16, and December 7.

The Committee next reviewed and approved the agenda for the Faculty Meeting and adjourned at 9:50 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory S. Call
Dean of the Faculty