The ASUNM Steering and Rules Committee voted against joining the Faculty Senate in urging revision of the fall 2002 academic calendar that starts the semester a week earlier than usual, leaving one week of classes after Thanksgiving.
Committee members debated the pros and cons of the schedule, which both Faculty Senate members and Associated Students of UNM senators agreed would leave what they called a "dead" single week before exams after students return from Thanksgiving break.
ASUNM Senate President Pro Tempore Heather Gabel sponsored a resolution that, if passed, would have mirrored a similar resolution passed Tuesday by the Faculty Senate. She said she worried that the shortened summer would cost students money and valuable internship experience.
"I will lose $600," she said. "I'm basically getting hit in the pocketbook twice - I could have used that $600 to offset the tuition increase."
ASUNM Attorney General David Padilla and Sen. Jacqueline Farrington said they thought students might suffer from losing the week of relaxation between summer session and the beginning of fall classes.
But others said the resolution, which would have stated the Senate's disapproval of the current calendar, was unnecessary, and that the schedule, though different than past years, would have benefits of its own.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
ASUNM President Andrea Cook said she was happy with the calendar's allotment of five weeks for Christmas break, which is usually four weeks.
"As a student whose family doesn't live in New Mexico, I'd rather have more time during break - I relish that opportunity," she said, urging senators to get the views of other students.
Faculty Senate began discussing the issue during a January meeting. During that meeting, History Professor Dan Feller, who is not a member of the Senate, explained the issue to members.
He reiterated his belief that the fall 2002 calendar should be moved up a week so classes would start Aug. 26 at a Tuesday Faculty Senate meeting, during which a resolution was passed urging the Registrar's Office to correct the mistake.
The error originated, he believes, when someone in the office mistakenly started the semester two weeks before Labor Day and counted 14 weeks ahead to place Thanksgiving.
The semester often begins at that time, Feller says, but Labor Day is not a fixed point like Thanksgiving, which is always the fourth Thursday in November.
What should have happened, he said, was that the calendar should have been dated 14 weeks back from Thanksgiving as it has been during the past 15 years - thereby leaving two weeks after the holiday before exams.
"So the calendar in the 2001-2002 catalog had Thanksgiving on Nov. 21, but it will never be there," Feller said. "The question is how could somebody have a calendar with Thanksgiving in the wrong week. The answer is, they never actually looked at a calendar."
Instead of changing the calendar, an error memorandum was issued to correct the date for Thanksgiving in the catalog - ending the semester a week ahead of the usual date and leaving only one week before exams.
"Other faculty is adamantly opposed to the current schedule, they're pretty alarmed from a number of perspectives," said John Geissman, Faculty Senate president, adding that he had never seen classes start as early as Aug. 19. "From the perspective of a student, the last week is a dead week essentially. We don't present a lot of new material, so you basically have a couple of dead weeks at the end of the semester. Let's face it, we don't see a lot of students in class the week before Thanksgiving."
Geissman said the administration had been receptive to faculty concerns, but that many events, such as LOBOrientation, student visits and publications, had already been planned and purchased.
The Faculty Senate sent a letter to Kathleen Sena, UNM's registrar, Jan. 30 expressing concern about the amended calendar.
The letter stated after debating the issue, 93 percent of faculty senators present supported modifying the schedule. Geissman, who signed the letter on behalf of the Senate, requested that school begin one week later and the University community be notified of the changes.
Deputy Provost Richard Holder cited Provost Brian Foster's comments to the Faculty Senate Tuesday, emphasizing that the administration took the scheduling concerns seriously.
"The University has published all kinds of materials about when school starts, as well as secondary calendars regarding financial aid and scholarships," Holder said. "It's not a simple thing to just set it back a week. The ramifications will go on for a year. We in administration agree with the Faculty Senate's having a role in that sort of thing, and we'll look at the situation."
Sena was not in the office Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
