Minutes of the Academic Affairs Committee Meeting

25 February 2003

Present: David Blankenship, Lisa Chase, Jim Dembowski, Wilma Feliciano, Glenn Geher (chair), Yoav Kaddar, Debra Miller, Matthew Schwartz, Robin Smith, Chih-Yang Tsai, Greg Wirszyla, Mohammad Zunoubi.

The meeting was called to order about 11.40 a.m.

Glenn noted that the committee would meet again next Tuesday, 04 March, at a place to be determined. [That place was subsequently announced as HUM120].

A question was raised regarding whether or not the academic calendar posted on the web for the upcoming academic year (2003-2004) was correct in all respects. The question concerned whether or not the schedule of classes for Columbus Day 2003 was correct. Glenn and others will check into this.

Before continuing further discussion on the 2004-2005 calendar, a motion was made that the committee decide first whether or not that calendar would contain religious holidays, that being the primary contentious issue in calendar discussion. The motion was for the committee to Aagree that we should make a calendar in which religious holidays that have been traditionally observed, continue to be observed.@ The motion was seconded. Discussion ensued.

Some arguments in favor of maintaining the holidays included:

$ The possibility that large numbers of people might be absent to observe holidays if they are not accommodated in the schedule.

$ People who do not wish to observe holidays may still do academic work, other than holding or attending classes.

Some arguments opposed to maintaining religious holidays in the calendar included:

$ Losing the holidays is pragmatically advantageous in that it allows more flexibility in calendar design to accommodate other needs (e.g., a fall mid-semester break, an earlier conclusion to the fall semester for students who travel extensively over the winter break).

$ Minimizing the need for Aalternative@ days which cause scheduling difficulties for adjuncts, working students, etc. (i.e., the AWednesday is Monday@ phenomenon).

$ Respect for religious observance by any one group does not necessarily require specific schedule accommodation by the entire academic community; students and faculty making religious observances may be accommodated individually as needed.

$ The proportion of the academic community who will actually be absent on a given holiday is unknown, and therefore hard to predict; this may not be a substantial problem.

$ The student body is more diverse than the faculty and it may not be reasonable (nor equitably respectful) to accommodate all religious observances by all represented religious groups; the more practical and equitably respectful approach could be to officially recognize no religious holidays and accommodate individuals as necessary.

$ The student representative was specifically queried and suggested that students often perceive the assignment of religious and ethnic observances as inequitable and feel that if all religious points of view cannot be represented then a more egalitarian approach would be to recognize none.

Miscellaneous other issues related to calendar design included:

$ Advantages of a later fall start time to allow students to work longer at summer jobs.

$ The possibility that two versions of a calendar could be presented to the faculty as whole (one with religious holidays, one without), to allow faculty members choice.

The point was made that, because religious holidays are such a contentious issue, it might simply be easier to present to the faculty a calendar which reflects the policies of the last several years and save ourselves a certain amount of angst and hassle. That point was countered with the observance that the academic affairs committee has some responsibility to present a calendar based on the best judgment of its members, whatever that judgment may be, regardless of its potential to raise contention. We were reminded that the faculty is free to reject the committee=s recommendation and adopt a different calendar if it so wishes.

The motion raised early in the meeting (to design a calendar containing religious holidays as previously observed) was brought to a vote. The results were:

In favor: 4

Opposed: 7

Abstain: 1

One member, in the expectation that this motion would be raised, voted in abstentia to oppose the inclusion of religious holidays, and made that view clear to the committee chair prior to the meeting. That raised the total opposed to 8.

Deb Miller has prepared three calendars without religious holidays for the committee=s consideration. These will be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 12.30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Dembowski