minutes2006-12-07

Prof. Baker called the meeting to order at approximately 3:30 p.m., then asked for and received approval of the minutes of 9 November 2006.

The second item on the agenda was consideration of the proposal to create a major in Dance to be offered by the Duke University Dance Program. Prof. Baker observed that such authorization was one of the most solemn and important of the Council’s duties. Before the proposal had reached the Council, in fact, it had already been carefully vetted twice, first by the Council’s Curriculum Committee and subsequently by the Executive Committee of the Council. As a means of approaching the question yet again this afternoon, he had invited Prof. N. Gregson Davis (Department of Classical Studies and Dean of the Humanities) to comment on the role of Dance in the Arts at Duke.

Dean Davis observed first that while he realized he might to some extent be “preaching to the converted,” he nevertheless would be pleased to make three main points. The first concerned ideas in art—in particular, the intertwining of ideas within dance. For himself, a classicist, a major early example would be the nature and importance of the chorus—that is, the singers and dancers—in the themes and action of the dramas of ancient Greece. After drawing some further illustrations of the role of ideas from English Romantic poetry, he moved on to his second main observation: the place of the Arts at Duke University. The arts have been thoroughly embedded in the Humanities, and they would continue to be important here. In fact, they were likely to become even more visible in the coming years. It had long been evident that the Arts at Duke were by no means merely recreational—though they certainly should and always would have a recreational aspect. It was for this reason that Duke had been working assiduously to strengthen and enhance the Arts in “serious ways.” For example, as members of the Council were aware, there already were well-advanced plans to build two new and sizeable performance spaces during the approaching reconfiguration of the Central Campus. As a third and final major point he wished to note Duke’s intention to do a better job of integrating the Arts at Duke in the overall curriculum of our undergraduates. And all three of his points were, of course, a way of saying that, yes, the proposal now before the Council was important.

Prof. Baker thanked Dean Davis for his introductory chorus, then turned to Prof. Michael Morton (Germanic Languages and Literature), current chair of the Council’s Curriculum Committee. Prof. Morton came forward and proceeded to sketch briefly the process that he and his committee had undertaken in response to the request of the Dance Program to establish a major in Dance. Quite early in the present fall semester his committee had received not only a “very substantial” proposal to inaugurate a major in Dance at Duke, but also a letter from Dr. Robert Thompson (Dean of Trinity College and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education) which was strongly supportive of the proposal. The Curriculum Committee had then gone to work—no easy task considering the sheer mass of evidence and argument that had been submitted. The end result was that the Curriculum Committee was very favorably impressed not only by the thorough, careful, and well-conceived proposal itself but also by their interview with Prof. Barbara Dickinson, the long-time and current Director of the Dance Program. Ultimately unanimous in their support of the proposal, the members of the Curriculum Committee had forwarded their data and conclusion to the Executive Committee of the Arts and Sciences Council, which in turn had then both conferred with Prof. Dickinson and reviewed, discussed, and unanimously approved the proposal. The travels of the proposal concerning Dance were completed this afternoon by its arrival before the Council itself.

After expressing his thanks to both Prof. Morton and his committee, Prof. Baker invited Prof. Dickinson herself to address the Council. She began her remarks with a bit of history: Dance had been a free-standing program at Duke since the 1980s, and students had been able to minor in Dance since 1997. During that time, as the size and therefore the breadth of the faculty in Dance increased, a considerable number of courses had been established, with the result that currently all of the necessary courses were in place to support a full-fledged major in Dance.

She proceeded to comment on the strong student interest now evinced in Dance. At least twelve students had said recently that they would definitely major in Dance if allowed to do so. The Dance Program, furthermore, had already established strong and significant connections with other academic units at Duke, including Music, Religion, Theater Studies, and Women’s Studies.

Prof. Dickinson then proceeded to describe the proposed major in some detail, pointing out along the way that Dance at Duke was unique insofar as it focused on Dance and its social context, and perhaps also in its aim to develop artists who were thinkers. All in all, Dance as it was taught here was clearly in step with Duke University’s current emphasis on various kinds of diversity, including interdisciplinarity.

Prof. Baker thanked Prof. Dickinson for her “compelling case” and invited Council members to comment on it.

Prof. Chris Conover (Public Policy) wondered where the students wanting to major in Dance were coming from. Dance currently had seven faculty members. Would offering a major draw more students? Prof. Dickinson: We already have a number of students who are hoping to sign up. In fact, most of the students who come to us ask about a major. And we are assuming that a high percentage of the new students will be double majors.

Prof. Richard Riddell (Office of the President and Theater Studies) observed that he was much impressed by the detailed data that Dance had submitted (the proposal was nearly “as thick as a phone book”). In particular, he thought the Dance faculty deserved praise for its efforts to integrate various kinds of study.

Prof. David Malone (Education) noted that Art and Music at Duke both employed tenured faculty. Was a “similar situation” anticipated in Dance? Prof. Dickinson: “We are all by definition POPs” (Professors of the Practice). Our situation is similar to that of the Drama Program before it became the Department of Theater Studies.

Prof. Conover: Might today’s proposal, then, be a step toward making Dance a department? Prof. Dickinson: “We are not looking at that step. We want to get the major going.”

Ms. Quinn Lipton (Duke, ‘07), taking advantage of a brief pause in the discussion, asked if she might offer a student’s perspective. Currently completing a course of study titled “Cultural Expression Through the Arts” (under Program II), she had had occasion to examine the relationship between cultural and artistic development in society. She had not merely taken classes in dance technique; she had also been encouraged to look into dance history and theory, music, and art. The Dance Program at Duke had completely changed the way she thought not just about dance alone, but also about the people and the world at large. “Through the course of my four years I have taken most of the classes that are proposed for a dance major,” and they have “changed the way I think, see the world, and view myself.” With considerable emotion, she assured the Council that there is a need for this type of study “at an elite university.”

At this point Prof. Baker invited a motion in favor of the Executive Committee’s recommendation that the Dance Program be authorized to offer a major in Dance. The motion was passed unanimously.

As he turned to the next agenda item, Prof. Baker noted that it brought to the table another in a series of efforts to understand better some of the varied aspects of campus culture at Duke. Having hosted Mr. Bradley Berndt of the Athletic Department at the Council’s November meeting, the Council now welcomed Lt. Col. John D. Wroth, Professor and Commander of Aerospace Studies in the Duke University Air Force ROTC. And he reminded the Council itself that it did, indeed, have an Officer Education Committee (currently chaired by Prof. Victor Strandberg, English).

Prof. Wroth, pleased to have such an opportunity, observed that while his own position was concerned solely with the Air Force, he had parallel colleagues on campus who represented the Army and the Navy. At least occasionally, Council members probably saw ROTC students wearing the uniforms of one or another of these three units. All of them were in commissioning programs and all were full-time Duke students.

With the aid of a show-and-tell screen, Prof. Wroth proceeded to explain that the goal of the Air Force ROTC was to recruit, educate, and train commissioned officers for the United States Air Force. Currently the program at Duke was officially rated as the best in the southeastern United States— despite the fact that the Duke contingent was seriously underpopulated.

Prof. Conover: Are you training reserve officers? Prof. Wroth: Yes, but they are reserve officers only while they are in our program. When they leave us, they become active duty officers for the USAF.

Further good news, Prof. Wroth continued, was that the Air Force ROTC brought significant scholarship money to Duke University: about $400,000 per year (for students’ tuition, stipends, and book allowances) were available to students in the program. The Air Force was very proud of the fact that these students were not only good citizens (e.g., they did volunteer work at the Durham Rescue Mission and Ronald McDonald House) but also—with a GPA average of 3.4—they were good scholars as well.

In the fall of 2006, Prof. Wroth continued, the total enrollment of these cadets was twenty-four, more than half of whom were minorities and more than half of whom were females.

Prof. Rebecca Stein (Cultural Anthropology) inquired whether the program’s eight classes were counted toward the thirty-four credits necessary for graduation at Duke. Dr. Martina Bryant (Associate Dean, Trinity College) replied that as many as four Military Science credits might be counted toward the required thiry-four.

Prof. Wroth next remarked on the contribution of Duke University that made possible the presence here of ROTC units. This included facilities such as offices in Trent Hall, internet and phone service, an annual operating budget of $15,210, a classroom, a staff assistant and custodian, and—this above all—the opportunity of an “outstanding education for [the] nation’s future Air Force officers.”

“We do a great job,” Prof. Wroth continued, “except when it comes to enrollment. We should produce fifteen officers per year,” but last year we produced only four, and this year we are down to three. “We have many student applicants” (i.e., “thoroughly vetted” applicants who might bring scholarships to Duke), but for some reason “they do not get admitted.” Because of too few admissions, “We are now below the viable mark.” Moreover, the Army ROTC and, to a lesser degree, the Navy ROTC were facing the same problem.

Prof. Ronald Grunwald (chair, Study Abroad Committee) asked whether there were time constraints in registration that we should be aware of. Yes, Prof. Wroth replied. The ROTC would really appreciate knowing as early as possible who was going to be admitted. We often have scholarships that go unused because of the risk of awarding them to students who have not yet been accepted by Duke.

Prof. Alexander Downes (Political Science) asserted that he could “testify to the quality of these students.”

Dean Margaret Riley (Director, Office of Study Abroad) said her understanding was that the military had initiated an effort to ensure that all its officers would become fluent in another language. She suggested to Prof. Wroth that this might be a helpful recruitment mechanism for the ROTC. The fact that Duke had a foreign language requirement for all of its Arts and Sciences undergraduates might give Duke ROTC students something of an “edge.” Prof. Wroth replied that scholarship funds were, indeed, available to cadets enrolled in specific foreign language majors.

Prof. Caroline Bruzelius (Art and Art History) asked whether it was possible for cadets to take part in Study Abroad. Reply: One student had participated in the program last year and another would participate next year.

At this point Prof. Baker thanked Prof. Wroth for his presentation and expressed the hope that there might be further conversation about the problem of enrollment, both with Duke’s Army and Navy ROTC officers and with Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Christoph Guttentag.

To address the penultimate agenda item, Prof. Baker introduced Mr. Elliott Wolf (President, Duke Student Government). Mr. Wolf, who wished to report on the much-discussed and now-operational student-generated online course-evaluation system, described himself at the moment as a sort of “information conduit.” He noted that originally a prototype online evaluation program had been inaugurated in 1998-99 but failed to win much faculty acceptance. After a great deal of discussion, an “opt-in” system was launched in 2003, but again, for a mix of reasons, this one, too, had failed to achieve much favor among faculty members.

During the fall of 2005, therefore, Mr. Wolf set to work on his own course-evaluation system. With the support and guidance of Prof. Owen Astrachan (Computer Science, ECACS), a new site was created, this time one that was student-controlled but nevertheless had the support of Arts and Sciences technology and was still operational within the Duke University system. It did not attract a great many responses, but this was bearable insofar as it was in part “a gesture of dissatisfaction” with what previously had been available.

Again with the help of the large screen, Mr. Wolf then proceeded to demonstrate and explain some of the characteristics of the current system of course-evaluation.

Among his remarks, he observed that students felt a need for a good course-evaluation system in order to gauge the level of difficulty or overall attractiveness of their courses. They wanted to know what they would encounter. Interestingly, it appeared not to be true that students were constantly “slamming” professors because their courses were difficult. Among the evaluations that had been entered, in fact, there appeared to be a weak but positive correlation between “toughness” and “praise.” The students here were paying a large amount of money to Duke University, and many were wary of taking courses about which they had no prior knowledge. And students had legitimate questions, questions such as “Does the T.A. [Teaching Assistant] in this course speak passable English?” If Mr. Wolf himself could find no information concerning a course, the chances were that he would not sign up for it.

Dean Riley: At what point during a semester are the forms to be filled in? Mr. Wolf: Although there is an effort to get responses toward the end of semesters, responses could be entered at any time. One might even submit responses “retroactively.”

Prof. Ingeborg Walther (Germanic Languages and Literature) asked if it was theoretically possible for a student to comment on a course without ever taking it. Answer: Yes. Prof. Walther continued: as she understood the matter, anyone could log into the system, but only students could post information. She wondered whether any provision could be made for faculty members to post their own “feedback.” Answer: That idea had been given some thought, but had proved difficult to implement. At the moment the answer was “no.”

Currently, to the best of Mr. Wolf’s knowledge, only 713 course evaluations for 313 courses and 299 professors had been posted. As matters now stood, participation in course-evaluation at Duke was not what it should be.

Prof. Baker expressed his appreciation for Mr. Wolf’s remarks, then moved on briskly to introduce the final agenda item of the day: a report by Prof. S. Philip Morgan (Sociology), chair of the Council’s Committee on Faculty Research.

Prof. Morgan described the main chores of his committee: to monitor travel awards and to award research and conference grants. In distributing funds his committee, which took its duties very seriously, aimed for as much equity and transparency as possible. Travel awards were currently budgeted for $200,000 per year, with the maximum award being $1,000. The pool for research grants last year consisted of $150,000, the maximum amount for a single grant being $5,000. The new element on the scene was, of course, the conference grants, for which $12,000 (of a year-long allocation of $25,000) had been distributed in the spring of 2006. This fall the committee received twenty-five conference proposals requesting a total of $100,000, and in order to fund more of the proposals, Dean George McLendon had provided an additional $35,000. Roughly fifty percent of the conference proposals were funded.

Of all their jobs, members serving on the Faculty Research Committee had found that the handling of conference applications was most difficult. The committee simply made the best choices it could. Council members might be interested in learning that information regarding every conference proposal that was funded had been made available on the committee’s website (www.aas.duke.edu/research/ASRC).

Prof. Zannie Voss (Theater Studies) noted the importance of both informing and reminding Arts and Sciences faculty members concerning application deadlines for faculty research grants.

Since the verbal pace of speakers had speeded up markedly during these latter moments, Prof. Baker was able to declare the December meeting of the Council closed at what was very close to the target time of five o’clock.