Faculty worked against the AISDS Program and/or the AISDS professors.
One of the administrators, a dean, even called students at home to find out what they disliked about AISDS courses and why a student dropped out of another AISDS course.
There is the notion among many, if not most, of the university's faculty that the AISDS Program does not have a legitimate and valid role in a contemporary university setting.
However, they did not teach about nor did they include any of the AISDS courses until recently.
Thus, one of the strongest sources of faculty support for the AISDS Program was inadvertently developed because the administration and faculty did not know what to do with the program.
During the two cuttings of the AISDS Program and of the AISDS faculty position, this committee helped in planning strategies and actions, drafting documents, speaking to committees, and defending MSDS in faculty assemblies.
The committee members also helped in getting a number of AISDS courses designated as Regional Studies.
One involves the first time the AISDS Program was cut in March a997.
In February 1998 the university administration reinstated the AISDS Program, citing student support as a major factor in the decision.
A second student comes to mind who helped in getting the AISDS minor established as part of the university's curriculum.
She thought that the AISDS courses, especially the Dakota History and Culture course, should be part of the curriculum of Regional Studies.
I did not expect to see students from this area, a very conservative, very religious, and predominantly Republican area, to march, carry signs, and rally as they did in support of the AISDS Program.