Professor of Sociology and American Studies Jan Dizard, representing the Committee of Six, asked that the meeting turn its attention to the report submitted by the Committee for Academic Priorities (CAP), also the principle topic of discussion at the previous gathering. The faculty's interest was particularly captured by the curricular innovation the CAP report proposes. The report advocates instituting two full-time equivalent (FTE) positions to support the development of "intensive writing" courses and suggests students be made to take one course designated as "Writing Attentive" to address a perceived lapse in students' writing skills.
Inquiry and confusion centered around the difference between writing intensive and writing attentive courses. Professor of History and CAP Co-Chair John Servos, who fielded the faculty's questions, attempted to resolve the uncertainty. "Writing intensive means that the class is primarily focused on improving writing," Servos explained. "Everything is slowed down to discuss essays and all the classes are of a very small size. 'Writing Attentive' simply means that students will write and hopefully become better writers naturally during the class, and we have identified many courses in the curriculum like that already."
The report's writing proposal met with enthusiasm from some camps. "I loved the writing attentive recommendation," said Associate Professor of Psychology Catherine Sanderson. "I would be willing to take a class to improve my own teaching of writing."
Professor of Russian Stanley Rabinowitz expressed similar sentiments. "What's revolutionary here is the faculty's willingness to be trained, to be given the resources, to teach writing," he said.
But the optimism was largely tempered by caution and reservations. Associate Professor of Computer Science Scott Kaplan was among the first to voice his hesitation. "My feeling about where we're going with this report, and where it's taking us, is making me uncomfortable," he said. "I don't think we should use [the report] as a sum-and-substance letter, but just as guidance."
Professor of Chemistry Mark Marshall was equally reluctant to abide by the report's recommendations. "Can I support this knowing that I will never teach this kind of [writing intensive] class?" he asked rhetorically.
Kaplan later joined Marshall in expressing reservations about a writing requirement. "I have difficulty supporting a writing course without supporting a quantitative course and a science course and a foreign language course, and then we're moving toward a sort of thin core curriculum."
Servos, however, was quick to counter. "We raised the possibility of [mandatory] quantitative courses with the faculty, but writing was the only thing they addressed. It cuts across every discipline in a way that quantitative skills do not," he rebutted.
Still, faculty members continued to question the necessity of adopting the report's suggestions. "It's my understanding that we already have writing attentive courses, in the form of first-year seminars," said Professor of Psychology Lisa Raskin. "When I talked to first-year seminar professors, 25 of 29 said they fulfilled a writing requirement."
Associate Dean of Faculty Frederick Griffiths differed, however, citing a survey in which 60 percent of College seniors claimed that their seminar did not significantly improve their writing.
Other faculty, though supportive of the writing attentive courses, balked at the prospect of the intensive classes. Sanderson claimed that selecting students for the intensive courses represented an imposing obstacle. "I'm still not convinced about how to identify students who need the courses, and how to sensitively let them know about it," she said. Ideally, the students most in need of support would self-select for the class, instead of being forced into it.
Professor of Political Science and LJST Austin Sarat, among the last to speak, was the only faculty member to express complete dissatisfaction with the report's recommendations. "The trustees said they wouldn't support us if we continued doing what we were doing and they pushed [the recommendations] on us," he groused. "Shame on them! What we're doing now is pretty darn good."
Before the discussion on writing, however, faculty member honored two deceased individuals. The evening began with a brief biography and memorial minute of silence for James E. Ostendarp, professor of physical education and head football coach at Amherst for 33 years. Ostendarp, whose lifetime winning percentage ranks fifth all time among Div. III coaches, was renowned for imparting life lessons to his players that extended well beyond the playing field. His emphasis on mental discipline earned him a reputation as a "professor who happened to teach football."
After service as a paratrooper in World War II, a brief playing stint for the New York Giants and coaching tenures at Bucknell University, Williams College and Cornell University, Ostendarp arrived at Amherst in 1959 and finally spread roots. His former players and staff consistently raved about his moral fiber. In 1985, ESPN asked permission to televise the 100th meeting between Amherst and Williams. The Williams head coach immediately agreed, but Ostendarp replied to the offer by snapping, "We're in education, we aren't in the entertainment business." Ostendarp's death, on Dec. 15, 2005, followed a long bout with Alzheimer's Disease.
The meeting continued with a second memorial minute for the Right Reverend George L. Cadigan '33, the Assistant Chaplain and Minister at the College for eight years. Cadigan, despite attending Amherst during the depths of the Great Depression, emerged as a football captain and a top scholar. He attended theological school in Cambridge, Mass. and in England, and was quickly ordained as an Episcopalian priest. He served communities in Brunswick, Me., Salem, Mass. and Rochester, N.Y., before being offered a position as bishop of a Missouri community.
Although it pained him to leave his beloved Northeast, he took the job, and quickly became a leading champion of social justice and civil rights in the turbulent South. He was a strong proponent of non-violent protest and was a friend of Martin Luther King Jr. His work in civil rights earned him St. Louis Citizen of the Year for 1970.
When Cadigan retired as Bishop in 1975, he was extended an offer to return to Amherst as a minister. Although the position was nebulous, he craved the opportunity to be close to the students, and accepted the position. He served as College minister for eight years and in 2000 was honored with the eponymous Cadigan Center for Religious Life.