Professor of Fine Arts Joel Upton began the debate by summarizing a letter he recently sent to the Committee of Six-the faculty committee that oversees most of the other committees and sets the agenda for the faculty meetings-in which he argued that the president's chairmanship of the CAP is inappropriate. Upton worried that the president would have too much control over the curriculum since he already controls hiring and firing, and his presence breaks with precedent.
President Anthony Marx answered that, in chairing the CAP, he hoped to streamline the work of the committee and the implementation of its findings by allowing the CAP access to the considerations of groups like the board of trustees. "The hope was that I would bring other perspectives that I have ... that I would be open to being influenced or vetoed," said Marx. While he has the final say on allocation of professors among departments, the board of trustees oversees College facilities, which would need to be radically changed if the CAP recommends a significant increase in faculty.
Professor of Computer Science Cathy McGeogh asked if sole chairmanship of the CAP was necessary to achieve the goals Marx was addressing by being on the CAP. Marx responded that the Committee of Six had felt that a co-chair, had there been one, would have been constrained by the position.
At the end of the meeting Professor of Classics Becky Sinos motioned that Marx not serve on the CAP. The motion was seconded and postponed to the next faculty meeting.
Upton also argued in his letter that the membership of the CAP does not represent artistic or contemplative "ways of knowing." Upton asked that two practicing artists be added. Marx gave Upton little hope that this request would be fulfilled. "I believe there are other people in the room that believe that their ways of knowing are underrepresented on the CAP," he said.
The faculty passed an amendment to the faculty handbook adding a paragraph outlining the elements that should be taken into account by departments when evaluating junior faculty for reappointment in order to standardize the process. These elements include published and publicly presented work, and projects that are under way. Some professors worried that this goal would lead to an unending increase in the list of evaluation requirements.
Dean of the Faculty Greg Call cited statistics that disproved the argument raised at the last faculty meeting that recent years have seen a decreasing number of successful reappointments.
Call announced that he, Marx and Associate Dean of the Faculty Rick Griffiths met with tenure-track faculty members to discuss reappointment procedures, and that the outcome of that discussion would be brought to the Committee of Six and subsequently to the faculty as a whole. The younger faculty had generally expressed frustration at the lack of constructive feedback during reappointment.
The faculty approved all seven new courses recommended by the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP). Several members of the faculty asked that the CEP look into the amount of time students actually spend in classes, and the possibility of awarding different amounts of credits for classes that meet for less time each week or hold fewer session each semester. Faculty also expressed dismay at the fact that 74 percent of courses currently meet either one or two times per week.
At the end of the meeting Marx congratulated the faculty its increased participation in the meeting; earlier he had encouraged more faculty, particularly younger members, to contribute to discussion.
The faculty postponed the second motion concerning reappointment and a motion to make the recommended penalty for all academic dishonesty failure in the course in question.