Feel free to add comments, questions, or suggestions below. You may post anonymously if you wish.

There were six anonymous notecards left at the meeting, and one more (signed) addressed to Clerk’s Committee which I have delivered to those folks directly.

Suggestions re: the query

A good step might be to not write a letter to the community saying they shouldn’t get angry and yell at authority figures who repeatedly, publicly, and unapologetically misgender them because ‘it’s difficult’ and ‘he was trying.’


Ideas on how to use upcoming time:

How to move forward with “critical perspectives without getting turf-y. Or maybe just rename them and figure it out later.


I’m very concerned (and don’t understand) the C- requirement for Gen Ed courses – this means that all Gen Ed plus their major courses would have this minimum, which means few-to-none of the courses a student takes would allow for a D- to D+. With all of the pressure for retention, it seems that this would encourage us to dumb down our courses or lower our standards. I’m concerned it won’t encourage exploration in challenging areas and it will put the emphasis on the grade rather than the learning. I’m all for rigor, but I think this bar feels arbitrary – students who have too many D grades likely won’t be retained anyway.


New faculty weren’t given a thorough explanation of LAGER. Can we take some time to go back and do a “LAGER 101?” Just briefly.


If we get a transfer senior/junior, how will we service their gen ed needs while we ramp up?

Could the Gen Ed be different for “Adult” students vs. Trad? If we want to rebuild this historical part of Guilford we may need this difference.


Suggestion: Let’s start the next meeting w/ Zhihong’s, Mylene’s, and Tom’s comments. Thanks.