Tlte Cwuydjbm^ ^owumjJL
Volume XI, Number 22
The Student Newspaper of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
February 24, 1976
Creative Arts evaluated
By Sara Bullard
“The Creative Arts program suffers
from a self-imposed isolation.”
“The BCA and the Rowe Building
seem to be a closed society.”
The present structure of the Creative
Arts Department is “administratively
inefficient and confusing.”
“There is little - communication
between Creative Arts faculty.”
These were some of the observations
made in a 120-page report by the Creative
Arts Review Committee, appointed in
February, 1975, to conduct a thorough
evaluation of the Creative Arts
Department. The committee, composed
of faculty and staff within and outside
the department, based their findings and
recommendations primarily on interviews
and questionaires. Their critique
identified the major problems of the
program to be:
--imprecision and inconsistencies
concerning methods and goals,
--isolation and lack of
communication within and outside the
department,
--conflict among factions and
individuals within the department, and
-general lack of understanding of the
program.
“Serious threats to the health of the
Creative Arts program,” the report says,
“stem primarily from the feelings
resulting from the confusion about the
program within the department and the
generally unsatisfactory interface
between the departpient and the
remainder of the campus.
“...the tension and animosity which
currently exist in the department
are causes for great alarm... the
polarization of feelings and attitudes
severely interfaces with the ability of the
program to function effectively as an
administrative unit and as an educational
environment.”
A subcommittee on administrative
analysis, headed by Dr. Sherman L.
Burson, concluded that:
-the goals of the BCA program are
not consistently understood by the staff,
faculty, students, administrators of the
program and by others outside the
program.
-•Administrative structure and
procedure of the department are
imprecise and not .clearly understood by-
members of the department.
"The Department of Creative Arts
does not function effectively as an
organizational unit.
"The administrative structure is not
appropriate for the achievement of the
program’s goals.
No one really seems to know what
the goals of the BCA program are
supposed to be, according to the
subcommittee on academic standards and
requirements, “...the program goals are
nowhere precisely stated...there is
variance among faculty in the priority
and interpretation of the goals...as a
consequence of this variance, faculty
evaluation of students is uneven.”
A conflict between two factions in
the department is a major source of this
variance, the report says. One group
insists that “personal growth” be the first
priority of the program, while the other
group maintains “artistic competence” is,
ihe most important goal. “This is
especially true in the music area,” the
report says. “A student can get caught
between two music factions.”
Confusion over the process of
evaluation results from this conflict,
according to the report, and places “in
jeopardy...much that is valuable in the
Resent unstructured program of Creative
7he suspicion has arisen,” the
report states, “that Creative Arts is
somehow in another world.” This
isolation problem is attributed to the
confinement of arts activities to the
Rowe Building, the inability of BCA
majors to enroll in courses outside the
department and the inadequacies of the
department’s service role to non-majors.
These last two factors are now being
dealt with, according to Luca DiCecco,
chairman of the Creative Arts
Department.
BCA majors are now allowed, on a
limited basis, to take courses, outside the
department. In the past, majors were
only permitted to audit courses. Dr.
DiCecco said the regulation was made
before he came to UNCC, but he is not
sure what the purpose of the restriction
was. “I honestly don’t know whether it
involved a consideration of what the
program needed, or what the computers
could do.”
Several potentially large enrollment
courses are being designed, according to
DiCecco, in response to the review
committee’s criticism that the
department has failed to fulfill its service
role to non-majors.
In addition to the evaluation by the
Creative Arts Review Committee, a study
of the BCA program was done in April
1975 by three consultants from the N.C.
School of the Arts, the University of
Minnesota and Julliard School of Music.
The general conclusions of the
consultants, according to DiCecco, were
that “there wasn’t a common
understanding on what and how to
achieve (in the program), there are
misconceptions...and an inability on the
part of faculty and students to work with
the program and a need for structure.”
“The consultants were only here
three days,” DiCecco added, “By and
large it would be difficult for them to
understand the program.”
Dr. Philip Hildreth, Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs, called the
consultant’s report “privileged
information” and refused to release it,
although he said the consultants did not
specify the distribution of the report be
limited.
A synopsis of the consultants’ major
recommendations was provided. Among
those recommendations were:
-The BCA program should be
continued, provided “educational
requirements of the University as a .
whole” be met.
■ -A departmental faculty-student
committee should be appointed to
“assess the program...generate specific
proposals...and to rearticulate aims and
orientation of the BCA.”
“Music and art appreciation and
history courses should be reinstated.
"At least the first year of the
program should be partially structured.
"Faculty in the department “must
be in support of the program as designed
and instituted,” and complaints against
faculty members should be dealt with.
"Fraudulent reports and serious
questions concerning faculty
accountability have occurred.” There is a
need for a more efficient grading and
crediting procedure.
(The “fraudulent reports” according
to Hildreth, concerned students who
were given 'credit without the
'authorization of the departments
involved. He did not specify the faculty
involved and said that to his knowledge
no punitive actions were taken.)
--“Continued financial investment is
important...and additional administrative
staff appears necessary.”
--“Arts should not be confined to the
Rowe Building.”
Both of the evaluations
recommended the Creative Arts
Department make alterations in the
program. The department is expected to
delineate these changes in a cumulative
report by the end of this month.
“Its unique that a department with
its program has given itself to this kind of
broad evaluation,” DiCecco said.
“Departments are usually enclosed and
reluctant to be evaluated from outside.
I’m going to be pushing as hard as I can
for every other department to have this
kind of evaluation...its a very healthy
thing.”
Hildreth agreed more evaluations of
this type are needed, but said specific
plans have not been made to implement
them.
Nelson speaks at %iving with less^
By Steve Bass
Clifford Nelson, U.S. State
Department officer in charge of
Population Affairs in the Bureau of
Oceans and Environmental and Scientific
Affairs, spoke to about 130 people in the
Lucas Room February 12 on the topic,
“Economic Facts of Life: Living with
Less.”
Nelson’s speech, along with the
ensuing symposium, was sponsored by
the Political Science Department and the
Friends of UNCC. Nelson was introduced
by Dr. Nancy Joyner, organizer of the
symposium, following opening remarks
by Chancellor D.W. Colvard and Dr.
Schley Lyons, chairman of the Political
Science Department.
Nelson, speaking in a ramblir^,
informal style uncharacteristic of
Washington officials, opened his remarks
•by asking the audience, “Who do we live
with? We’ve always felt that our country
could produce enough, and our people
industrious enough to supply our needs.
How much further can we go? Are we to
extend to 2/3 of the world our standard
Photo courtesy of ^
Political Science Department
of living. More is not necessarily better,
we must look at the quality of the
world.”
Nelson, whose foreign service career
has included assignments in Frankport,
Salzburg, Jidda, Tunis, Sailsburg, Saigon
and Cairo, then discussed the topic in
relation to his world experience. “Never
have I heard a less developed country say
that the U.S. should drink less coffee, or
use less copper. Most of the countries of
the world like our standard of living.
Very few have workings of civilization,
technological management and the
government climate to achieve it.”
Nelson stressed the need for social
mobility so, “that the son of a shepard
will not necessarily have to be a
shepard.”
Nelson continued by statitig the key
to the problem is the exploding world
population. “Our goal would be to have
about four billion people in the world.
(but) if we run at the same rate we will
have about seven billion people by the
year 2000. In the United States, I think
we will cope with the problem rather
well. Currently our country is expanding
at a rate of about .6 or .7 per cent per
year. If we could (in the U.S.) level off at
about 275 million, we’d be all right.”
The exploding areas of Asian
countries according to Nelson are
beginning to practice birth control,
“except Burma. If countries like India
and Pakistan do not limit births, their
death rates will begin to increase also.”
Nelson concluded by saying the
United States will have to assist the
underdeveloped countries of the world
development; the question is how much
assistance the. U.S. will offer and what
types of aid the United States will offer.
“The question is, will we send food, or
more guns?”
Conference pleases Joyner
Clifford Nelson.
By Brad Rich
The recent “Living with Less”
conference, cosponsored by the
Department of Political Science and the
Friends of UNCC, was termed successful
by Dr. Nancy Joyner who was
responsible for much of (he program’s
organization.
According to Joyner, the department
. was pleased with attendance, especially
that of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
area branch of , the American
Association of University Women
(AAUW). She added, however, she was a
little disappointed that more of the
Friends did not attend, saying, “I think
people who organize an event should
attend their event.”
“The featured speaker, Clifford
J'Jelson of the U.S. State Department,
could have structured his remarks more,”
said Joyner. “He rambled quite a bit, but
generally seemed comfortable with the
audience and enjoyed the atmosphere of
the university.”
Dr. Joyner felt the afternoon session
was by far the highlight of the
conference. The AAUW brought the
most challenging questions she felt, and
the UNCC professors who spoke
captured the important aspects of the
discussion well. Especially interesting she
felt was Dr. Arnold Caan’s discussion on
the psychological attitudes of adjusting
to living with less. Dr. Joyner felt two
sentiments were expressed, “one, that of
status quo - the people who will not
change until forced and two, those with
an affinity to change. These people are
the ones who are beginning to adjust,”
she added.
Dr. Joyner said the Friends of UNCC
and some of the faculty members are
eager for this conference to be merely
the first in a series. She said many
important facts were brought out in the
discussion that should benefit the
community in the long run. These
benefits may not be visible all at once
but at least incrementally they should be
helpful;