Faculty Forum on the Identity of the College/ March 24, 2006

Minutes taken by Susan Farrell, Secretary of the Senate

After opening remarks by Simon Lewis, President Higdon spoke briefly, commending committee members and the faculty in general for the “participative process” we had undergone in discussing the college’s identity.  He said that he feels comfortable with the descriptors faculty have developed to define the liberal arts.  The liberal arts are a way of learning and a means of self-discovery that are particularly appropriate for these times, in which liberal education values are being challenged.  Mr. Higdon also pointed out that he saw this discussion as the beginning of a conversation, not the end.  He informed faculty that we will be entering a new stage of strategic planning.  Any discussion of the college’s identity and the liberal arts must address the issue of what the liberal arts mean to students and a broadly defined group of stakeholders as well as what the term means to faculty.  We must be able to articulate clearly our definition of the liberal arts, and we must associate this definition with specific outcomes.

 

Next, Provost Jorgens addressed the faculty.  She said she recognized that her earlier comments at a Senate meeting had generated some of this discussion, but she emphasized that she didn’t want to be defensive.  She has found the ensuing discussion “healthy” and is pleased faculty have delved into the question of identity in a serious way.  Ms. Jorgens said she agreed with Simon Lewis’s description of the “ethos” of the college.  She pointed out that she hasn’t sought to change the college’s ethos, but has asked whether we need to continue to call ourselves a liberal arts college in order to maintain that ethos.  She believes that broadening our definition might bring us new opportunities.  We need to come together in the next stage of strategic planning and address what the implications of a liberal arts designation are—that’s the hard part of this process.  Now that we’ve refined our thinking, the next challenge is to refine what the liberal arts label means for the institution strategically, not just for faculty members as we go about our teaching and other duties.

 

            The floor was then opened to questions.  Claire Curtis asked what role the administration believed faculty should take in the next step of strategic planning.  Mr. Higdon replied that he wanted this next step of planning to be a “bottoms-up process” and that he is happy to receive advice about what the process should look like.  In any case, he believes the administration should provide certain assumptions or constraints for the faculty at large and that there should be some kind of core planning group to sift and refine the ideas brought forth. The administration is currently trying to set money aside for this next round of planning, which will look to the next 5-10 years at the college.  This new strategic plan will be less of a “needs and wants list” and more of a philosophical and programmatic look at the college’s future. The Provost added that discussion about how to go forward with the next step of planning has already begun.  The Board of Trustees expects this next stage and the college will work closely with the Board on it.  She also pointed out that certain kinds of planning are already going on in Schools and Departments and that the administration doesn’t want to ignore this, but to coordinate with it.  Mr. Higdon then suggested that Speaker of the Faculty Bob Mignone think about “tasking a group” or “sounding the faculty” about a process for this next stage of planning.

 

            Julia Eichelberger asked about available resources as we plan for the future.  She pointed out that sometimes faculty devise new initiatives which are vetoed because of cost.  If faculty had a better sense of what the resource parameters are, we could better participate in the planning process.  For instance, the English Department has been re-examining faculty workload, but the amount of resources available could create drastically different plans.  The Provost replied that the college is instituting a new way of looking at workload on the departmental rather than the individual level.  This new method is based on student credit production.  The issue was raised in the last Faculty Senate meeting, but she sensed that faculty desired more information, which Ms. Jorgens said she would get to faculty members soon.  Mr. Higdon added he’s worked hard at securing resources since he’s been here, a time he considers the worst period for public education in America ever.  He is sensitive to undertaking planning without financial parameters.  He hopes that money to institute the strategic plan will be available at some aggregate level:  a pool of money which he will lay the groundwork for at the next Board meeting.  Perhaps one idea that might bubble up from the planning process would be a faculty intensive freshman experience.  But again, a sifting process is needed to determine which ideas we should fund.  He feels it is better to do a few things at a high level than to scatter funds across too many projects.  Provost Jorgens added that we also need to think about the implications of the planning process in relation to the general education conversation occurring on campus.  She hopes that everyone on campus will embrace general education and communicate its importance to our students.

 

            Next, Skip Godow made two observations.  First, he thought it might behoove us to stop talked about “gen ed” and start talking about what a College of Charleston education involves in its entire package.  He believes the less we use the term “gen ed,” the better.  Second, he pointed at that we’re very good at the college at generating planning documents, but these are not really strategic plans because there is currently no sifting process in place.  He hopes the planning process we develop either uses departmental planning documents or throws them out entirely.  The President responded that the administration has already begun to talk about these issues.  Deanna Caveny then pointed out that Julia Eichelberger talked about what her department is planning, but that conversations about workload have also been going on at the institutional level.  We’ve reached a point where departments need to know what the institution has been saying about these matters.  Some decisions are going to be hard because we are going to have to make choices about where money goes.

           

            Bob Mignone spoke next and directed the conversation back to the liberals arts issue.  He argued that many institutions offer a liberal education.  When we discuss identity, we need to ask which of the things that we do we most want to be identified with.  He said that we don’t consider ourselves a research university, or a graduate university, or a comprehensive university, even though we are each of these things to a certain extent.  What we want to focus on at the College of Charleston is that we provide a liberal education.  The question we need to consider is:  How can we strengthen the ethos for this on campus?

 

            Alex Kasman then pointed out that marketing and public perception of the college are important issues to consider.  He understood that the liberal arts designation may create misconceptions, but wondered if we could take advantage of these misconceptions in an advertising campaign that perhaps plays on them.  Ms. Jorgens responded that some thinking about just these issues was going on in Media Relations right now.  We have a new Vice President of Marketing, who is here at this meeting.  Claire Curtis then voiced a complaint about an advertisement for Maymester courses that highlighted sailing.  Sylvia Gamboa, Summer School Dean, said the ad was put together by the Summer School Program in conjunction with College Relations.  It was directed toward students and appeared in student newspapers around the state.  Mike Haskins, our new Vice President of Marketing, then responded to Mr. Kasman’s comments, saying that a campaign such as he proposed was possible.  Mr. Haskins believes that marketing is a matter of bringing people and organizations together for mutual benefit.  The process of marketing begins with listening, and he is happy to listen to faculty input.

 

            Next, Simon Lewis pointed out that it had been interesting meeting with the candidates for Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences.  One of the candidates said the college was already a regionally pre-eminent public liberal arts and sciences university.  Mr. Lewis said that he believes people are starting to look at the college as a model.  We must first build on this regional reputation before we can move on to achieve a national reputation. 

 

            Kay Smith, Associate Vice President for the Academic Experience, commented that the college will be undergoing a SACS evaluation in 2007.  This process will ask us to think about the next ten years at the college as well.  The SACS evaluation may be able to serve as a bridge from the Fourth Century Initiative into the new planning process.  Jeri Cabot then pointed out that the relationship between the Fourth Century Initiative and the previous strategic planning process was confusing at times.  She hopes that we think through the SACS evaluation and the remaining items from the Fourth Century Initiative before launching into a new planning process.  The Provost added that SACS is asking us to affirm our mission statement, which she believes needs to be done. 

 

            Phil Dustan spoke next, arguing that the reason the college exists in the first place is because we had forward-thinking people from the community in the past.  He wanted to emphasize the college’s relationship with the city, but worried that students from local schools are not as prepared as out-of-state students.  He said that we need ingenuity to face the future, which is a strength of a liberal education.  Yet, he doesn’t believe that the college is “broken,” and cited the axiom, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  In response, Mr. Higdon replied that the College of Charleston is “far from broken.”  We are a successful institution, but what we have to try to do in the future is further distinguish ourselves in a few areas.  Part of the planning process is to identify these areas.  Yet, we must seize the opportunity now if we want to be somewhere further along in the next 5-10 years.  Then, turning back to Jeri Cabot’s point about the relationship between SACS and the strategic planning process, Mr. Higdon said that, at any time, we’re always going to have plans being developed.  Our next strategic plan will subsume some of the previous plan, which was the first systematic effort at college-wide planning.   This next stage of strategic planning will not entail a wish list but will be more focused on where we want to go as an institution.  It will be more focused on us than the SACS process will be. 

 

            Susan Kattwinkel then argued that she gets worried when she hears “Let’s talk about this more.”  It is easy to spend money on “sexy” or marketable items like new buildings, she pointed out, while it’s harder to spend money on general education or non-sexy items.  She said that she is tired of talk and believes it is time to act.  Mr. Higdon responded by saying that a great deal has been accomplished during his five years here.  The administration has not just been “slapping our gums around.”  For instance, there will be a pilot freshman seminar program conducted next year.  He reiterated that this entire next round of planning will be focused more on programming than on facilities.

 

            Reid Wiseman asked about how the college is doing in terms of admissions.  He wondered what our applicants look like.  The President replied that we are getting better students, that he hears anecdotally that students are better:  the bottom is shrinking, the top is widening.  Students come here because of our liberal arts description, yet too many of our students don’t understand what the liberal arts are.  They often place importance on things that we don’t.  We need to communicate our philosophy to students so that they will have a better idea of what the liberal arts entail.

 

            Barbara Borg then asked about areas of distinction at the college.  How will these areas of distinction connect to general education?  How do we know if our majors or programs are on the list?  Won’t having areas of distinction pull us in different directions, away from the core?  Mr. Higdon replied by praising the recent outside review given the Department of Sociology and Anthropology.  He added that we have very strong disciplines and that the college will build on these strengths.  The test for areas of distinctiveness will revolve around the programs that become models for others to follow, what he called “programs of influence.”

 

            Mark Lazzaro spoke next, pointing out that he believed out-of-state students are driving up our quality and that in-state students are hampering us.  Our quality can only go so high because the state requires we accept a certain percentage of in-state students.  Mr. Higdon responded that all high quality public institutions in this country have become incredibly selective in their admissions of out-of-state students.  The key to quality, he believes, rests in retention.  Right now, the college doesn’t have good retention for our ambitions.  Thus, we’ve been forced to accept more students at the front end.  Good retention and graduation rates will place less pressure on the front end.  Mr. Lazzaro then asked if were having trouble retaining out-of-state students.  Mr. Higdon replied that we’re having trouble retaining both in-state and out-of-state students.  It hurts retention when students lose state scholarships, and the college has started a bridge grant program to deal with this problem.

 

            Doug Friedman then asked whether incoming students anywhere understood what a liberal arts education is.  He asked if any surveys have been done of students who have graduated from college.  The President replied that national AACU surveys have been given to seniors in high school and college, and that the two groups are saying similar things.  Yet, national data exists which shows that students who have had a liberal arts education have positive outcomes.  Again, we need to talk more directly with students about the value of a College of Charleston education.

 

            Next, Terry Bowers pointed out that a liberal arts education is not about training for a job, but is an education for life.  It should be broad, not specialized.  He has noticed a tendency toward professionalism showing up, however, in recently approved programs and majors at the college.  Ms. Jorgens agreed that several credit-intensive majors have recently been approved, but argued that these have been broadly interdisciplinary, which she sees as a mitigating factor.  Our current general education requirements, she added, require a large time investment and the college is not considering backing off that as we revisit general education.  So, the education we offer is broadly based.  But we need a broad buy-in to our general education offerings; faculty need to speak about this part of our educational program with conviction.  Lynne Ford spoke next and agreed with Mr. Bowers, pointing out as well that we have a tradition of excitement and strength in our majors, but less of such a tradition in general education because it is spread out over so many disciplines.  She looks forward to what the general education committee proposes in order to re-commit the college collectively toward general education.   Reid Wiseman then suggested using the Convocation speaker as a way to teach students about the value of a liberal arts education.  Jean Everett argued that the faculty as a whole is committed to general education and that this very process of discussing the college identity shows it.   Next, Alex Kasman suggested we should ask students what a liberal arts education means ten years after they graduate, not while they’re here or immediately after graduation.  He also picked up on Phil Dustan’s comments and urged faculty members to become involved in local high schools.  Finally, he pointed out that he thought very focused majors were acceptable as long as students also has the broad training associated with our general education courses.

 

            Rosemary Brana-Shute then suggested that we need to talk to parents to figure out what they think about a liberal arts education.  Mr. Higdon responded that parents do tend to talk about vocations while liberal arts is more about ways of thinking.  He tries to engage parents on these topics at parents’ weekend.  Kay Smith added that, at orientation this summer, college officials will make more of an effort to talk with students and parents about the liberal arts.  She has compiled a list of ten things parents should ask their students, but she’d be happy to take suggestions for a second list:  ten things parents should never ask their students.  Ms. Smith also pointed out that individual faculty members can use next year’s convocation book in classes in order to model the liberal arts to our students.

 

            Terry Bowers pointed out that there seemed to be quite a consensus in the room about the value of the liberal arts.  He hoped that people in admissions and marketing were on board with this consensus as well.  The liberal arts is primarily about learning how to think in different ways.  It has to be integrated into all four years of college work.  The Provost agreed, but pointed out that, on meetings at the state level, there has been an impetus to get students through college as quickly as possibility.  The pushing of students into numerous Advanced Placement courses in high school is one example of this. 

 

            Simon Lewis then closed the meeting by urging us to think what we can do in the state and elsewhere to help our students succeed.