University of North Carolina at Asheville



                              FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

                                 February 19, 1981





        A Faculty Senate met on Thursday, February 19, 1981 at 4:00 pm in

        RL1 with Dr. Gene Rainey, Chairman, presiding.  



        Members present:  Dr. Browning, Dr. Coyne, Dr. Dorr, 

        Dr. Friedenberg, Dr. Greenawalt, Dr. Howard, Dr. Johnston, 

        Dr. Lang, Dr. McCoy, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Sulock, Dr. Walker, 

        Dr. Wilson.



        Excused absences:  Dr. Braggio, Dr. Perry, Dr. Squibb.  



        Visitors:  Dr. Bergemann, Dr. Bruce, Mrs. Cadle, Dr. Cochran, 

        Dr. Cole, Dr. Cooper, Dr. Cranston, Dr. Otti, Dr. Rackham,

        Dr. Ready, Dr. Ruiz, Dr. Seitz, Dr. Shoaf, Dr. Stern, Dr. 

        Stevens, Dr. Stoughton, Mr. Wengrow.





        Dr. Rainey read the memo from President Friday to the Chancellors

        which began the process of looking into majors with less than five

        graduates.  



        Dr. Cochran discussed briefly the data on the academic departments

        and programs which he had distributed to the faculty before the

        meeting.  



        Dr. Coyne and Dr. Howard read a prepared statement concerning their

        stand on this issue.  Dr. Cooper presented his thoughts with a

        written statement forthcoming.  



        Briefly, some of the comments made were:  



        Dr. Sulock:  We are supposed to be oriented toward the community.

        There are many in his classes that are not planning on graduating,

        but maybe need the course for their job, for example.  



        Dr. Lang:  We are not a residential college.  We are more

        vulnerable to the problem of low number of graduates for that

        reason.  



        Dr. Greenawalt:  We need to know who brought forth the figure of

        five so that we know how to deal with it.  



        Dr. Browning:  We shouldn't get hung up on the number five as to

        what it means.  Basically, it means that somebody is going to

        specify some type of major criterion which every member of the

        university will be involved.  Good we have some data (Cochran's

        report), but not really sure where we might go with these figures

        without a reference point.  If we use this data, we ought to try to

        figure out what we mean by productive or cost efficient.  Also, as

        we advise students, if we don't ask our students to take Classics,

        for instance, then we have an academic problem.  


                                                                     Page 2

        





        Dr. Stevens:  What is our point of reference?  What do we want this

        campus to be?  



        Dr. Greenawalt:  Would like to see developed the cost of space in

        which we operate compared to other universities.  Would we come out

        looking more efficient economically?  



        Dr. Johnston:  We should try to keep in mind that things are going

        to change in order to grow.  We are not going to stay the same as

        we were 10 years ago.  



        Dr. Rainey:  Whatever our mission, we would suffer without the

        presence of some of our colleagues who can enrich us.  We do have

        some very strong, highly productive departments from the

        standpoints of majors and graduates.  Because we do have these,

        then we can afford some luxury items.  It is not good to cut off

        the bottom figures and put in what is popular as majors.  Education

        is not that type of industry.  It is not something we can shift

        very quickly from generation to generation.  We have to put up with

        a slowly evolving curriculum.  Whatever the mission is, you still

        need within that environment, certain influences.  



        APPROVED:  Deryl Howard                 Jan Scroggs

                   Faculty Senate Secretary     Secretary