University of North Carolina at Asheville
Minutes, January 29, 2004

Members: M. Alm, R. Booker, K. Bramlett, T. Brown, D. James, J. Konz, ML Manns, S. Mills, P. Nickless, S. Patch, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, I. Rossell, M. Ruiz, J. Wood; M. Padilla.

Visitors: M. Coxie, F. Davenport, M. Epstein, L. Friedenberg, E. Katz, G. Kormanik, K. Krumpe, D. Lisnerski, B. Massey, W. McDevitt, J. Mullen, D. Peifer, M. Sidelnick, R. Sensabaugh, A. Shope, B. Spellman, P. Williams, J. Yarnell.

I. Call to Order and Announcements
Dr. Patch called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed senators and guests.
He announced that the Executive Committee will meet briefly at the conclusion of this meeting.

II. Second Reading:
APC 8: Integrative Liberal Studies Implementation Proposal

Dr. Patch asked anyone with motions to propose to pass them forward so transparencies could be made. No motions were forthcoming.

He explained that the meeting is to consider motions and to consider passing APC 8. Visitors are welcome to participate in the discussion. The emphasis will be on substantive issues. If clarifications are needed to understand whether we want to pass this document or pass any amendments, then it is important to ask for them.

Mr. Bramlett reported that APC approved the ILS document on January 20, 2004. The document was distributed to the Senate on January 22nd and to the faculty-at-large the following day. The APC asked for faculty input and they have received it. Since last week, there have been roughly 58 suggested editorial changes. The changes range from consistency in capitalization and language use, to the use of prefixes or complex words, to the replacement of words, phrases, and sentences to enhance clarity. Some of the suggested changes are in conflict - especially suggested word replacements. Due to the time schedule, none of the suggested editorial changes have been formally approved by APC. More importantly, none of the suggested editorial changes involve any substantive change to the document. It will take hours to systematically review all the suggested editorial changes.

In order for the Senate - as planned - to discuss the ILS document today and hear suggested amendments to the document, Mr. Bramlett proposed the following motion: Contingent on the passage of APC Document 8, at least three representatives of APC and at least two representatives of the ILS Team will meet and discuss all suggested editorial changes, integrating editorial changes as necessary for consistency, clarity, grammar, and readability. Dr. Alm seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Mr. Bramlett stated that there was little in this document that has not been discussed at length and there was little in this document that is not the result of compromise. In that vein, if folks do not understand something or want clarification, a moment of explanation might help a lot. Most of this represents compromise after a very long drawn-out process. Dr. Katz stated that in addition to being about compromise, it was also about collaboration throughout the entire APC process.

Dr. Alm asked to hear from senators who did not serve on APC, to learn their thoughts and feelings about this change to our general education program.

Dr. Brown stated that his perception of the process that transpired to create this document and where we are now in the process of implementing an ambitious new general education - an integrative liberal studies curriculum - is that in many ways this is just a starting point for us. We still have a lot of work to do in terms of tweaking it and in terms of implementing it in a way that is responsible and wise in terms of resources. His perception is that we are right at this moment to take this process to the next step. Dr. Dee James added that there are some questions about resources that cannot be answered in the abstract. We can give our best guess and APC has tried to do that. In the ILS meetings she has attended, folks have raised serious and reasonable questions about resource issues that we do not know the answers to. This is experimental from her point of view. We are ready to try it, understanding that some of what we anticipate will not unfold in the way that we anticipated, and some things will happen in ways very much like what we have suggested. We will have to make adjustments as we go along.

Dr. Reynolds stated that her concerns were mostly about the content in Humanities 414 that she was afraid would not be carried over into this new structure. After reading the document, she saw that the Senior Colloquium will have core content which she approved of very strongly. She addressed an issue that Dr. Sidelnick brought up. The Humanities 414 faculty has addressed the issue of what they would be contributing in the Senior Colloquium and what the content would be. There are certain issues, especially with the environment on her part, and other contemporary issues, that they want and will do their best to make sure is included in this core content in the Senior Colloquium. She has been very much relieved with the response to her own objections to the previous iterations of this document.

Dr. Patch asked if any visitors had comments that they would like to make or questions. Dr. Sidelnick noted that Alicia Shope and Rebecca Sensabaugh were present, as well as folks who were involved with the SACS accreditation process that the University had undergone the past several years. He asked if the people at the administrative level who will implement this and be accountable for accreditation feel comfortable that, when we proceed 1) we will not be in any knowing jeopardy for accreditation and 2) we do have an avenue for addressing the documentation via the Catalogs and the graduation check sheets as we go forward?

Dr. Katz stated that his sense is that the program actually takes into account many of the observations of the SACS Team when they came to evaluate our present program. For example, concerns about diversity, about writing throughout the curriculum, about ways in which the major and general education did not seem to make contact with one another. The fact that the liberal studies colloquia originated out of departments is also a plus to SACS. While they want to encourage interdisciplinarity, they also have an interest in promoting our deployment of expertise in appropriate ways. A lot of the issues that were reflected on by the SACS Team regarding the curriculum are reflected in this document. His sense is that this will be seen as an enhancement to SACS.

Dr. Padilla added that this document addresses some of the issues that he saw come out of the process. The clusters in particular will provide a way for the natural sciences to get more involved with general education. He was worried that SACS would be concerned that humanities courses were being taught by folks who have not had any high level of training in those areas. This still allows for natural sciences to be involved in the humanities but it also gives them other avenues to get involved with the new curriculum. This will be an easier sell to SACS than our current general education program. We are not up for review for another eight or so years and they may have new criteria by then. He believed that our curriculum would be viewed as responsible in the eyes of SACS.

Dr. Manns stated that she read many drafts of the document - not only because it was her responsibility but also because it was exciting. While she and her daughter were looking for a college for her daughter last year, she looked at many general education curricula at many places. And while they were well-meaning, they had the same worn out stuff that we saw here - take a math class, a social science class, an art or music class. As the document developed, she got more excited about working here. She thought that while we have resource issues and other headaches before us, this curriculum would have the added benefit of exciting the faculty.

Dr. Padilla stated that the next step past SACS is the way in which higher education will view this curriculum and what it does to our position in higher education. He was excited about it for those reasons. This is going to put us into an enviable niche. Other schools could not simply replicate this because it leverages the interdisciplinarity that this faculty built over the years and that has matured to the point where we can have a curriculum like this. This uses our best values -- which is interdisciplinarity and collaboration. This school has done many innovative things - invented COPLAC, had a general education program with a humanities sequence, and initiated Undergraduate Research. We have been a leader in higher education for decades, and what we will be judged as is, "Here's another homerun." He is very excited by the prospects of telling this to our peers around the country and students and families.

Dr. Rossell stated that generally, she was very much in favor of the document. Like Dr. Manns, she thought that this can energize parts of our curriculum. One of her concerns is that the curriculum is designed very much with entering Freshmen in mind. They will come in as Freshman, will take the Freshman Colloquia, the language class, the three humanities classes, their clusters, "W" classes, "Q" classes, and "I" classes. She keeps wondering about the Transfer students. She asked that someone address how this is this going to impact the academic careers of Transfer students. She is a strong advocate of Transfer students at UNCA. We have been heading, in the last few years, toward an institution geared more toward traditional college-age students. She is wondering what happens to a Transfer student here - not necessarily one who comes with an articulation agreement from a community college - although we should as a body address that - get some assurances that the students that come in under an articulation agreement will still graduate in four years. Maybe someone can address that. But what about the student who just decides part way through their career to come here? They come in and they do not have the Freshman Colloquia, they do not have the clusters, they do not have the "W" classes. They have some math but not the "Q" classes. Are they still going to be able to graduate and get a degree from UNCA in a reasonable amount of time? If not, they will not come here. That would be a tremendous loss because they have been some of her very best students and she does not think we should have a curriculum that is so focused that we cannot accommodate them. She asked that those two issues be addressed.

Mr. Bramlett stated that he shared her concern and believed that both ILS and APC had looked carefully at that issue. It is a really hard question to answer. It is absolutely possible for a Transfer student to be penalized with this new curriculum. It is also just as true that with double-dipping and triple-dipping that is possible, that it will be easier for a Transfer student. A major concern has been equity from department to department and division to division. That is where the more technical differences might come into play. For example, if there are majors that are not offering many Writing Intensive classes, that are not participating in clusters, then the potential for a Transfer student to take longer to graduate is unarguably the case. At the same time, it is the departments' responsibility to make sure that none of their majors are unnecessarily penalized because they are not participating appropriately in the Integrative Liberal Studies program.

Dr. Patch stated that he shared Dr. Rossell's concern and was very concerned about it when the APC began their review of the document. He feels much better about it now. A lot of the faculty that were involved in the review brought this issue up fairly often. He thought that APC responded to it favorably and they made it more reasonable for Transfers to be able to satisfy the requirements. It is still not necessarily going to be easy for all the Transfers, but he agreed with Mr. Bramlett that it puts the onus on our faculty to develop cluster and intensive courses at the higher levels in the majors.

Mr. Bramlett added that requiring LS 379 of all Transfers is a huge step in the right direction. It will provide not only a needed class opportunity for its content, it will also give Transfer students a cohort effect. They are going to come in and get to know each other within that particular course. It is a huge advantage over what we have presently. Folks may argue that this is just another course that they have to take, but most of the folks on APC see this as a very positive improvement for Transfers.

Dr. Konz added that Transfer students are able to fulfill intensives and contribute courses toward the clusters from the courses they have taken at prior institutions upon appeal to the appropriate body. If they can demonstrate that a course they took at another institution had fifteen pages of writing and three assignments with feedback, they can get credit for a writing intensive course. He noted that we have talked about ways to cement our relationship with many of the institutions that send transfers here, thinking about ways students who intend to transfer to UNCA can work toward their ILS requirements while attending AB Tech, Blue Ridge Community College, or other institutions that send many students here.

Dr. Katz stated that one of the ideas that we are eager to move on is working in collaboration with at least the three primary feeder community colleges to help them see opportunities in the curriculum that we provide at UNCA. One of the benefits is that their students will be better prepared to transition here smoothly and that will be reinforced by ILS 379. There are funding opportunities for collaboration between universities and community colleges. That collaboration would also be important in the community of western North Carolina. ILS looked at the credit hours of students transferring in and looked particularly at the articulation students to see how many credits outside the major that they took on average, and it was well within the confines of the nine-hour cluster.

Dr. Padilla stated that increasingly strategic planning is absorbing recruiting. Strategic planning is the way in which a university advertises itself to look for students who are the best fit with the type of school it is or it wants to be. In that context, this will actually be a good recruiting tool and it will be part of our strategic planning. This will continue the progress of UNCA becoming a school of choice rather than of convenience for the region. This was a decision made by this school a number of years ago -- it is not something new. We want a state identity. We want a national identity. We are looking for students that fit our particular mission because we have chosen to cap. We will now be using this curriculum as part of our strategic message to attract those transfer students that want to come to this kind of place. There will always be a role for transfer students in our student body. It enriches the educational experience and it is part of our obligation to the state. But it might be that we would attract those students that know what they are getting into and choose us over another school. They may be more geographically differentiated -- we will be drawing from all over the state.

Dr. Kormanik stated that last November, the science faculty met and discussed the document and they made some recommendations to APC. APC kindly evaluated their request and made some changes. As a result of that meeting with the science faculty, a motion was made and passed unanimously among those meeting -- that the science laboratory and lecture courses designated "ILSN" must have a science department prefix, and they specified departments - Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Atmospheric Science, Computer Science, and Math. Subsequent discussions and informal discussions outside of the APC meeting, and at the APC meeting, indicated that neither Computer Science nor Math really expected inclusion, and therefore the consensus, he would suggest, indicates that the following modification should be made. He referred to page 18 under ILSN courses, the second sentence: "Most ILSN courses will be offered in the natural sciences although other departments may offer courses which receive ILSN designation." He respectfully requested that the Senate consider removing that sentence and substituting: "ILSN courses will have a natural science prefix." Under the current proposal, students can leave UNCA with a minimum of 7 hours of natural science. That is not much science. He was not speaking for the science faculty, he was simply reporting on what they discussed at their meetings. He respectfully requested that the Senate consider the change. Dr. Rossell made a motion to that effect. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion.

Dr. Patch offered a friendly amendment to the motion. We might have two different definitions of natural sciences in our university. He suggested listing the sciences so it would be clear that mathematics, for example, is not to be considered a natural science. Dr. Kormanik asked whether there were prefixes for those courses under Laboratory in the Natural Science, page 11. Dr. Patch stated that on that page, a list was not necessary because those are the only courses that have laboratories in the natural sciences. Dr. Kormanik noted that Computer Science or Math could develop a laboratory and anyone who wants to develop a lab could have one. Dr. Patch agreed that was a good point. Dr. Kormanik agreed that a list could be made but there is no list for the four hour or two-course combination in the natural sciences. Dr. Rossell stated that we could not use ENVR because they have classes. For example, Dee Eggers teaches policy classes with an ENVR prefix. We cannot assume that all ENVR courses qualify as a natural science. Some day Dr. Eggers could have a four-credit hour ENVR class on policy analysis which would not be a science class.

Mr. Bramlett referred to page 7 in terms of the sample ILS requirement checklist - that is where the actual possibilities are listed under lab science. Dr. Kormanik noted that the list does not include Geology, so there are courses that might be suitable and they are probably left out of this document.

Dr. Patch noted that Dr. Kormanik's motion did not include mathematics or computer science, so that would be a substantive change. In elections, mathematics and computer science are included under natural science. The default definition of natural science would include mathematics and computer science and potentially, in the future, engineering. Dr. Peifer stated that when they talked within the sciences, math and computer science were not worried about being in the list or not. You could include them if you wanted to use the general interpretation of natural science. It really does not make a difference.

Dr. Patch asked Dr. Rossell and Dr. Reynolds if they would accept a parenthetical list - as on page 7 - having those same prefixes listed. This was considered as a friendly amendment to the motion. The motion would now read: "ILSN courses will have a natural science prefix (ASTR, ATMS, BIOL, CHEM, ENVR, PHYS)." The motion is for the clusters only on page 18.

Dr. Brown asked for a rationale for the change. Dr. Rossell stated that right now we have an 8-hour science requirement which excludes math and computer science. We will be going to a 7-hour science requirement that might include math and computer science. There is a requirement for a "Q" class (math plus one "Q") so students will be getting mathematical quantitative exposure. This motion safeguards at least 7-hours for natural science.

Dr. Kormanik added that he has been here over 20 years and in general education we have had the equivalent to our current requirement -- students taking about 8 hours of natural sciences. Across the country, most institutions - especially those in our peer group - 8-hours of science is required for a liberally educated individual. There could be some differences, but 8 hours is a good amount. We are reducing this to potentially 4 hours because one could take a natural science 4-hour with lab. A student could also take something that is not in the natural sciences but would be designated according to that department, such as women's studies or philosophy. He respects his colleagues' ability to teach courses, but such courses do not have sufficient science content. He would argue that potentially we are reducing the science content for our students significantly.

Dr. Alm stated that APC considered this same motion and voted it down. APC discussed this extensively and chose to go with the version that currently exists in the document. It had to do with the nature of the topical cluster and the fact that a topic was being looked at from different lenses and that the perspective of the natural sciences, the investigation of the implications of scientific knowledge, might be offered from someone in another discipline. It is related to that interdisciplinarity that we see on our campus today. And the acknowledgment that the vast majority of these courses with ILSN requirement would come from the natural sciences - but we opened ourselves to the possibility that someone on campus might like to develop a course for a cluster with a scientific point of view as its focus.

Dr. Patch clarified that this was not the exact same motion. The motion for APC also included mathematics and computer science. But it was a similar motion and that was the rationale.

Dr. Katz stated that he was at that APC meeting and he felt conflicted at that meeting. Part of the spirit of the ILS program is to bring faculty into the general education curriculum in a way that they feel is the best way to contribute. At that APC meeting, the sense of the scientists at UNCA was that the way they felt best able to contribute to the curriculum, and the way that they thought was most appropriate for the sciences to contribute to an integrative curriculum, was by offering that amendment to the document. To him, that is very important. Our colleagues have expertise in the teaching of science. They have a point of view that is the product of experience, and when they speak as a whole faculty, then we ought to think very deeply about that.

Dr. James asked for clarity -- her understanding was that any proposals for clusters would go to the ILS Oversight Committee for approval and individual courses within a cluster would be approved. Is that the case? Dr. Patch agreed that was correct. ILSOC would use this verbiage under the ILSN courses and judge whether that particular course satisfied the guidelines that we have within this paragraph. If, in their judgment, it did so, it would be considered as an ILSN course. Dr. James stated that to her, that is the protective clause. But listening to Ed Katz, she realizes that the whole science community, or a large part of it, came together to make this suggestion and it is very much worth taking into account.

Dr. Friedenberg stated that we have a tradition here of sometimes allowing faculty from a different department to teach a course with a prefix from a given department. Would this, in fact, obviate that? For example, in Education and Psychology we have someone from the Education Department teaching a course with a PSYC prefix. We are comfortable with the credentialing and believe it has integrity. Would it be possible for a faculty member in another department - if in fact there were a collaborative agreement - to teach a course with a natural science prefix and therefore still participate in ILSN, even though that faculty member is not housed for purposes of tenure in a natural science department? Dr. Patch replied that his interpretation was that it would be fine. Dr. Padilla stated that the Chair would have to agree - that would be the one administrative function. It would be necessary that the department agree that the person could teach in that department for a particular purpose. Dr. Peifer stated that this was discussed in that multi-department meeting, and this was exactly what they intended. For example, people in Philosophy could teach a natural science course by coming to a natural science department and proposing a course to teach in that department. Dr. Padilla noted that we were running into a SACS issue here. He believed that SACS would be happier with the proposal that is on the table. We push the boundaries as much as we can - we fight to allow our faculty to teach subjects that they may not have a terminal degree in because we think that is part of our legacy. He also supported the motion because the prefixes also bring with it the responsibility. A true ILS program involves all the divisions, all the disciplines, all the departments - and if the natural sciences have decided that they want this privilege, then they have the responsibility to offer the courses that are truly invested with the spirit of ILS. If they do not, then the administration and their colleagues can say, You wanted the privilege; you are not holding up your end of the responsibility." He supported the motion because it demonstrates ownership by the natural sciences and makes them full members.

Dr. Ruiz stated that he was at the meeting at the APC and this was a difficult discussion. It was a very close vote - 3 to 2 - and it was 5:15 pm. He was really happy that this is being looked at by the entire Senate. He has taught in the humanities for many years and what has made his humanities teaching successful is being obligated to meet weekly with professionals in the field to make sure he does the job right. And what this proposal does is to make sure that the faculty member has the umbrella of the department and the rigor of that department to make sure you are doing enough science for the student. This is in the spirit of our legacy and he urged Senators to vote for the motion.

Dr. Wood echoed what was being said. However, as a writer he is interested in the elegance of parallel structure and, though it sounds self-serving, the paragraph above that has similar language. In the interest of what Dr. Padilla said about SACS preferences and also in the spirit of what is being articulated here - he asked if it makes sense to have similar language in the social sciences. Dr. Patch suggested waiting until the motion on the floor was resolved.

Dr. Nickless spoke against the motion. These are not courses about teaching in the sciences and this is not in the spirit of the document. She read: "…at least half of an ILSN course must be devoted to either the perspective of the natural sciences or an investigation of the implications of scientific knowledge or scientific methodology." This is something that the interdisciplinary program does uniquely.

Dr. Katz respectfully disagreed with Dr. Nickless, based on experiences he had last summer that convinced him that departmental courses can become highly inter- and multi-disciplinary. Dr. Krumpe and he were advance team participants in a National Science Foundation funded program called SENCER (Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities). They were shown how departmental science courses can incorporate a range of interdisciplinary content - techniques and pedagogy - and make explicit, in exciting ways that encouraged active learning, the various social implications, ethical considerations and policy issues that arise out of the science being studied. The kinds of science courses we will find our students taking at UNCA (being informed by the inter-and cross-disciplinarity of the cluster teams) will bring to bear a lot of developments for scientists, as well as for social scientists and other professors. That in itself will promote a different way of thinking and teaching.

ILSOC exists to provide a continuous oversight presence so that in 3-4 years we can see what is happening in these clusters, and whether this is working to meet the intention of the ILSN. At the APC meeting, there was concern expressed that, depending on the composition of the ILSOC team (which is required to have a natural scientist on it) and what those persons' viewpoints were, there would be inconsistency in the science offerings from one Oversight Committee to the next. The amendment might take care of that anxiety, and for that reason he thought it was a good idea. The amendment passed by a vote of 10 to 3 with one abstention.

Dr. Rossell asked for clarification on the language in the ILSN section, "At least one-half of an ILSN course must be devoted to the perspective of natural sciences…". If that is what we are looking for and only half of the ILSN course is devoted to the natural sciences, then students could theoretically graduate with 5 ½ hours of science content -- 4 hours in lab science and then 1 ½ out of 3 hours of the ILSN course would be science content. She asked where the idea of "one-half" came from.

Dr. Konz explained that we are considering shifting from the current general education program to the integrative liberal studies program. One of the shifts is moving away from a distributional kind of thinking about what our students are to get in their curriculum. We spent a lot of time talking about hours, and hours are important, but the issue is not so much the hours that students take in a particular division or area. With the new program, the emphasis is on connectivity and integration, and thinking about how the disciplines blend into each other. Any kind of hour count is going to be problematic with that kind of thinking in mind. In this case, in particular, we can think about the natural science component of the program as really having two parts to it. The traditional lab science courses - the "how you do science" investigation, beginning to enter a discipline -- and the ILSN course -- about finding a way in which the perspective of the sciences can be brought to bear on topics and issues that disciplines outside the sciences consider. We are thinking about ways to engage an issue or a topic or a theme from multiple perspectives, including the sciences. That is the real point about the ILSN course, more than exposure to so many credit hours' worth of material.

Dr. Katz stated that with the wording change just put into the document, the scientists are going to teach science courses that engage social or other topical issues from the standpoint of science. It is really more of a non-issue by virtue of the amendment to the document.

Dr. Alm stated that she wanted someone in a discipline that does not carry a science prefix to develop a course that fits this description and take it to ILSOC. She wants to see a well-documented case go through the process, with the prefix departments cooperating and granting that science prefix to that course. That is one of the reasons she changed her vote from APC to Senate. It made sense to her that it could be possible to do, and it is important that it happen sooner than later so that the entire campus sees that it is possible to do. The purpose of having an ILSN course in the Topical Cluster is different from the purpose of teaching a science course. It has a different purpose. This is a first attempt at putting such a curriculum in place, and we are going to be tweaking it for four or five years. It is important to test the waters about what this course is like.

Mr. Bramlett stated that it is also important to remember that we are talking about this in the context of a minimum. Ideally, clusters would have many courses, and students that are interested in a cluster might take several with a natural science perspective and/or a social science perspective.

Dr. Krumpe wanted to speak to this issue from the perspective of a natural scientist. He agreed with Dr. Kormanik that he would love to see more science. We are debating whether we are going to have 4 hours of traditional lab-based science or maybe 7. In the grand scheme of things, that extra 3 hours is not going to make a lot of difference to a lot of the students that he sees. The benefit of the ILSN approach, the benefit of the SENCER approach, is that we stand a chance of convincing these students who are going to take only 7 hours at best that science is important in the issues that impact them every single day. That it is going to be science that helps solve hunger. It is going to be science that helps solve AIDS. It is going to be science that deals with Alzheimer's disease. All these are issues that students hear about in a social context every day, and students do not necessarily recognize that the solution is going to come from science and that science is important in everything they do. While he would love to see more science taught to our students, to him there is a tremendous value in having more science literacy for our students and an understanding of the importance that science plays in their lives.

Dr. Patch returned to the issue that Dr. Wood brought up before the amendment -- whether we should have a parallel situation with the social sciences. He asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to that effect. Dr. Wood stated that he was inclined to trust ILSOC to worry about the process. He did not feel strongly enough about it to propose a motion but thought we should discuss it because it is our document.

Dr. Katz recommended not making a proposal to that affect. When you look at the entire humanities disciplines, they are increasingly becoming more sociologically informed. For example, you cannot discuss literature without talking about what is happening in society. In literary theory and critical approaches to literature, nearly all of the approaches in the contemporary period are sociologically informed. It would be a benefit to the curriculum to expand the number of opportunities that students could think about the social implications of the world that they live in. He likes parallelism too but sometimes consistency and parallelism is just not necessary. This is one case where it is not necessary.

Dr. Padilla explained that the natural sciences has a certain history that we are honoring. The history is not there for the social sciences and humanities divisions. We are dealing with different curricular histories.

Dr. Patch asked for other discussion. There was none. APC 8 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 1704S. A round of applause followed.

Dr. Patch thanked everyone who has been involved in this curricular revision at UNCA -- it has been a tremendous effort that we have put together as a group. Dr. Katz thanked all his colleagues who participated in this process for four years. He thanked his colleagues on APC, particularly Keith Bramlett, whose work on APC was so important the past two semesters. He thanked the faculty who attended the many APC sessions and contributed so much insight and so much assistance in shaping the document to be what it is.

Mr. Bramlett echoed Dr. Katz's comments and also thanked the volunteers from APC and ILS who are going to go through this document one last time to make the 58 editorial changes.

Dr. Padilla suggested that in recognition of Dr. Katz's leadership, we stand and thank him. A standing ovation followed.

III. Adjournment
Dr. Patch adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm.

Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
                                        Mary Lynn Manns