Sixth faculty group formed to evaluate core proposal
By Brandon Ortiz
Staff Reporter

The Faculty Senate unanimously decided Thursday to create a new committee to propose a revised draft of the Common Undergraduate Experience.

The committee would be the sixth in the last 19 months, not counting the Senate itself, to work on the proposed core curriculum. In a prior motion, the Senate unanimously passed a separate document laying out guidelines for the CUE.

The motion did not specify how the committee will be created or comprised.
Carolyn Spence Cagle, chairwoman of the Faculty Senate and an associate professor of nursing, said after the meeting that the Executive Committee of the Senate will meet with Provost William Koehler next week to craft a proposal, which would seek “equal representation” among departments and colleges, to introduce for a vote at their May 2 meeting.

She said the committee would likely start work this fall — ending the possibility that a new core could be approved by the faculty this semester.

Though the motions were past unanimously, several professors criticized it as too vague.

“If we vote yes, my question is, what are we voting for?” chemistry professor Joe Bobbich asked during the discussion.

Nonetheless, Cagle said the move was a step forward.

Cagle said the creation of the committee will lighten the workload of the Senate, whose agenda has been dominated by CUE discussions. The Senate, which typically meets the first Thursday of every of month, had to begin meeting twice a month in February to talk about the CUE exclusively. It also held a Faculty Assembly in January and three “town hall” meetings to discuss different portions of the CUE.

“I can’t even recall the number of hours we (the Executive Committee) have put into this,” Cagle said.

Cagle said a separate committee represented the best chance of achieving a consensus among faculty efficiently.

In the two motions, the Senate agreed that the committee defer the defining of outcomes to professors “in their area of intellectual interest.”

Several faculty members who criticized past CUE committees as being secretive said they supported the motion because of deferment.

“(That’s) the beauty of this committee,” Gregg Franzwa, a philosphy professor, said.

Brandon Ortiz
b.p.ortiz@student.tcu.edu

credits

TCU Daily Skiff © 2002