xt7fbg2hb49c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7fbg2hb49c/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1978-10-09  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 9, 1978 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 9, 1978 1978 1978-10-09 2020 true xt7fbg2hb49c section xt7fbg2hb49c UNIVERSITY OI: KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
I0 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

September 27, 1978

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
October 9, 1978 at 3:00 p.m. in the Court Room of the Law Building.

AGENDA:
1) Approval of minutes of September 11, 1978.
Memorial Resolution
Remarks: Joseph A. Bryant, Jr., Chairman
Action Items:
a) Proposed changes in and additions to the admissions
requirements in the College of Pharmacy, University
Senate Rules, IV, 2. Z. Z. (Circulated under date of
September 27, 1978:.)
Proposed ”Academic Performance Policy" in the College
of Allied Health Professions, if approved to be codified

by the Senate Rules Committee. (Circulated under date
of September 28, 1978.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORIUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 9, 1978

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October 9, 1978,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Michael Adelstein, C. Dwight Auvenshine*, Lyle N. Back*, Charles E.
Barnhart, Janis L. Bellack*, John J. Bernardo*, Kathy Besing, Brack A. Bivins*, Jack C.
Blanton, Sara Brumbaugh, C. Frank Buck*, Joseph T. Burch, Bradley Canon*, W. Merle Carter*,
S. K. Chan*, Donald B. Clapp, Lewis W. Cochran*, Clinton Collins*, Ronda S. Connaway*,
Raymond H. Cox, James E. Criswell*, George W. Denemark, David E. Denton*, Ronald C.
Dillehay*, Carolton Doran, Joseph M. Dougherty, Anthony Eardley, Bruce S. Eastwood*, W. W.
Ecton*, Roger Eichhorn*, Jane Emanuel*, Joseph Engelberg*, James E. Funk*, Hans Gesund*,
Alexander Gilchrist*, Abner Golden*, Andrew J. Grimes*, George W. Gunther*, Joseph Hamburg,
Raymond R. Hornback, Eugene Huff*, Charles W. Hultman*, David Hurst, Clyde L. Irwin*,
Donald W. Ivey*, Gerald Janecek, Dean Jaros, Margaret W. Jones*, Edward J. Kifer,

James A. Knoblett, Mark Koopman, Joseph Krislov*, Robert A. Kuehne, Gretchen LaGodna*,
Arthur Eieber*, John Lihani*, Austin S. Litvak, Marion E. McKenna*, Phillip W. Miller,
George E. Mitchell*, William G. Moody*, Sid Neal*, Robert C. Noble, Elbert W. Ockerman*,
Clayton Omvig*, Merrill W. Packer*, Leonard V. Packett, Ronda S. Paul, Doyle E. Peaslee*,
David Peck*, Alan R. Perreiah*, Deborah E. Powel1*, David H. Richardson, Wimberly C.
Royster*, Pritam S. Sabharwal, Stanley R. Saxe*, D. Milton Shuffett*, Timothy W. Sineath,
Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith*, Wade C. Smith, Terry Squires, John B. Stephenson,
Marjorie S. Stewart*, Lee T. Todd, William F. Wagner, John N. Walker, M. Stanley Wall,
Richard L. Warren*. Constance P. Wilson, Leon Zolondek*, and Robert G. Zumwinkle*

The minutes of the regular meeting of September 11, 1978, were accepted as circulated.

M, .Professor Malcolm E. Jewell, Department of Political Science, presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor John E. Reeves:

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION
John E. Reeves 1902 — 1978

John E. Reeves, who died on May l9, 1978, at the age of 75, had
a long record of distinguished service to this university and to the
state. He was born in Owen County, Kentucky in 1902. He received
the Bachelor of Arts degree in 1926 and the Master of Arts degree in
1938, both in political science, from the University of Kentucky. He
joined the Political Science Department in 1940, and served in that
department, with occasional interruptions for governmental service,
until he retired in 1968 with the rank of associate professor. He
served as acting head of the department in 1948.

During his teaching career, Jack Reeves trained a large number
of those who have served in Kentucky state and local governments
during the last thirty years. He brought to the classroom a vast
store of knowledge about Kentucky government, which was reflected
in the book on that topic that he published in several editions, and
in other monographs and articles on state and local government. He
also brought to the classroom a warm interest in students and a
determination to inspire in them the same interest in politics and
government that he shared.

7EAbsence explained

 

 _2_

Jack was an active member of the University community. He was
a member of the Senate and served on the Senate Council in 1962—64.
He was an active member and office—holder in the AAUP. He served a
term as president of the Kentucky Conference of Political Scientists.
He was on the council of the Midwest Political Science Association
(1948—49), and was a member of the American Political Science
Association.

Jack Reeves played a vital role in government and politics be—
fore, during, and after his years at the University. He served in
several agencies of the federal government during World War Two. He
served in the Kentucky Department of Revenue and the Legislative
Council early in his career. For three years after his retirement
(1974—77) he served as the first ombudsman of the Kentucky Department
of Human Resources; he handled more than 3,000 cases a year, drawing
on his extensive knowledge of state government and his deep concern
for the needs of people. He played a valuable role in legislative
reapportionment in 1963.

Probably Jack's deepest concern was the cause of the state
constitutional revision. He played a major role in the 1947 effort
to call a constitutional convention, served very effectively as a
member of the 1964 Constitutional Revision Assembly, and continued
his efforts during the 1977 campaign for a convention. He persisted
in his belief that the people of Kentucky could be persuaded to see
the need for a modern structure of government.

Jack never seemed happier than when he was involved in a politi“

cal campaign. He ran for local and legislative offices, campaigned
for a variety of candidates, served in political party offices, and
helped to lead several campaigns for state constitutional reform.
In politics, as in other phases of his life, he combined a strong
belief in what he stood for with a courteous respect for those who
disagreed with him.

Whether in the classroom, in government service, or in political
campaigns, Jack Reeves persisted in his efforts to bring about honest,
competent, modern government in this state. In these efforts he was
always a political realist, but he never lost his vision of a better
Kentucky. Some of his efforts fell short of success, but he contri-
buted as much, and perhaps more, than any other private citizen over
the last four decades to making politics and government work in this
state.

He is survived by his wife, Nancy; a daughter, Caroline; and
two sons, Robert and David. His first wife was the late Mary Knight.

(Prepared by Professor Malcolm E. Jewell, Department of Political Science)

Professor Jewell requested that the resolution be made a part of these minutes and that
a copy be provided to the members of the family. Following Professor Jewell's presentation
of the resolution, the Senators were asked to stand for a moment of silence in tribute and
respect to Professor John E. Reeves.

 

 _3_
The Chairman made the following remarks to the Senate:

This is not the time for an inaugural address even if one were
appropriate and I were capable of giving you one; but I am told that
it has been customary for the incoming chairperson to state briefly
for fellow Senators his prejudices, predilections, and personal pri-
orities so that you may have a chance to protest, support, or modify
before you are caught unawares.

The work of my predecessors——particularly that of the last
three—~has placed the Senate in a position to do its work more effi-
ciently than at anytime since it was first organized. We now operate
on the assumptions that attendance at meetings of the Senate is
obligatory unless circumstances absolutely prevent it and that all of
us are obligated to participate actively in one of the fourteen stand—
ing committees, which implement the charges given to us as a body in
the Senate Rules. My first concern this year therefore has been to
explore all means of enhancing the efficiency of this potentially
very efficient instrument of the university governance. Happily I
have detected no lack of will or enthusiasm on the part of any of the
committee chairmen appointed for this coming year, and I suspect that
slackening on their part——if any should occur——will be due in large
measure to the failure of the Senate Council and its Chairman to pro-
vide meaningful charges and the overall direction and planning that
can make all committees work together in something resembling a
coordinated whole. These committee chairmen (and I ask them to stand
as I call their names so that you can see as well as hear who they
are) are as follows: Louis Swift (Library Committee), William
Plucknett (Rules Committee), James D. Kemp (Admissions and Academic
Standards), Lee T. Todd (Student Affairs Committee), A. Edward
Blackhurst (Teaching, Learning and Advising), Roger Eichhorn (Research
Committee), Alan Perreiah (Academic Programs), Merlin Hackbart
(Academic Planning and Priorities), Jesse Harris (Academic Organization
and Structure), Don M. Soule (General Studies Committee), David Denton
(Special Teaching Programs), Marc Wallace (Academic Facilities),
Harwin Voss (Extended and Continuing Education Programs), and Doyle
Peaslee (Special Teaching Technologies). During recent months we
have heard suggestions about creating additional standing committees
or modifying the general charges assigned to some of the existing
ones. For the moment, however, I have to regard all such suggestions
as premature. We now have a special committee at work reviewing our
committee structure, and the report of that committee should contain
recommendations based on better and broader information than most of
us are likely to possess. Moreover, we would do well to let the
machinery run at least one more year to see how it works under the
best conditions that we as a body can provide. To discover what those
conditions are and provide or create them, the Council will need your
help. If you do not begin receiving specific requests from us shortly,
let us hear from you, particularly in regard to projects and priori—
ties that you yourselves feel are in need of attention.

I have no grand overall agenda in mind for the coming year, but
I do have one or two special concerns that have been engendered partly
by my own observation and partly by some of the reports that you wrote
last spring, and I should like to mention them briefly now and comment
on them as time will allow.

 

 -4-

The first is a concern for the quality of teaching, which mani—
fests itself as a kind of latent uneasiness in several of the final
reports that came to the Senate Council Office last May. One report
called attention to the need to make more imaginative and more
aggressive use of special teaching techniques and technologies, and
it suggested a campus—wide integrated service for drafting, graphic
aids, and photography. Another report deplored the increasing use
of poorly paid part—time teachers, some of whom happen to be quite
skilled and important to the success of our lower—division instruction;
it implicitly asked that we take note of a staffing need that we have
never met ourselves and have not adequately rewarded in those who meet
it for us. Still another report remarked on our indefensible igno—
rance about what really happens in the General Studies Program-—that
gesture on our part towards affirming that all our students begin
with the basics, or some of the basics, of a liberal education. This
report suggested a study to determine what general studies courses
students actually take and why. One imagines that the conclusions of
such study might not be flattering, but we need to have them, whatever
they happen to be. Two reports contained a strong recommendation
that we look carefully at our evaluation of teaching. This is an old
story. We all know that our evaluation—-and the students' evaluation——
of teaching leaves much to be desired; and our evaluation process
itself has been evaluated many times with few positive results.
Nevertheless, we need to keep trying to find useful answers. We
simply do not know, aside from a few peaks and abysses where the good
teaching is and what it is like, and we need to know. The Senate ,
Council can encourage those who are willing to undertake this task,
and it will encourage them——with charges, directions, and means inso—
far as it is able.

A second area of concern is research. As a university we should
consider this our determinative and primary concern. One reason that
it gets less attention than other things is that research is by its
nature a lonely quest, undertaken usually by individual faculty mem—
bers whenever they can be released from other duties. Yet research,
investigation, or creative participation in our respective disciplines,
is what we are here to do; and without research or its equivalent we
are no different from our sibling institutions at Louisville, Richmond,
Bowling Green, Murray, Morehead, and elsewhere. It is not pleasant
to record that of our fourteen standing committees, the least active
has been the Research Committee. I do not for a moment suggest that
blame for that should fall on the people who have been members of
that committee during the past few years. The blame is upon all of
us and the atmosphere we generate and find comfortable to live in.
It's no wonder that some of our younger faculty members get the
impression that instruction is our primary concern here and that
appealing instruction is the blossom that should always carry away
the prize. We need by means of our activities here in the Senate to
say to our younger colleagues and to the world ouside that our first
concern at the University of Kentucky is to discover truth, in as
many of its forms as possible, and that our teaching derives its
special character from our commitment to that aim. I very much hope
that this year's activity of the Senate can reflect a renewed
commitment to the encouragement and fostering of research.

 

 _5..

A third area is one that President Singletary expressed beauti—
fully in a public presentation some months ago. The University of
Kentucky, he said, ”is a place clearly to which large numbers come
for their education. They come and they take up residence and they go
to class X numbers of hours a week and so forth, but that's only one
kind of university. The other one is the university that reaches out
to the people and that's becoming more and more a function of higher
education, because this rapidly changing, highly industrialized
society just requires a great deal of instruction out there of one
kind or another ” Thirty years ago the university was pri—
marily a place where scholars asked questions and sought answers and
to which the elite were permitted to come for instruction. The
democratic impulse in America needed that, and the university has now
become a place to which all are invited. Some feel that the results
of this shift are unfortunate, but the end is not yet. Times continue
to change. Researchers tell us that the age of the average college
student has advanced appreciably since 1967, when 31% of all college
students were between 22 and 34 years of age, and 5% were over 35.
Now 51% of our student body is over 22, and 11% are over 35. This
means, according to some knowledgeable observers, that the University
may well become, even in our own time, a place where more adults than
adolescents seek experiences in learning.

It is already happening. Even within the last decade the Univer-
sity of Kentucky—~0r more accurately the undergraduate part of it——
has lost much of the advanced playschool character that it had developed
during the years between the wars and had maintained until the revolts
of the 60's made us all earnest and purposeful in ways we had not
anticipated being. Nowadays, as a consequence, our young people are
more and more inclined to be impatient with what we used to call a
liberal education and seek training that will guarantee the jobs and
careers that an elitist student body of two generations ago could
almost take for granted. Our older undergraduate population, mainly
enrolled for the moment in such "peripheral” activities as Extension,
the Evening Program, and the Donovan Scholarship Program, have proved
to be serious in another way; for these are the students who are
rapidly bringing the ideal of liberal education back into fashion.

The ferment that results from such changes is exciting, to be sure,
but it makes imperative a degree of flexibility in academic programm—
ing that only a few years ago we had never dreamed it would be
necessary to provide. In short we must begin to devise strategies to
make education meaningful for many kinds of people. Some of these
kinds are liberated housewives, some are men in business, some are
retired persons, and many are simply people who are willing to sacri-
fice a very great deal in order to pursue a career or a dream that
was denied them during their normal college days. Most of these
people are good students, and some are at the peak of their powers;
but whether good or bad they are as much a part of our clientele as
their children are, and we in fairness are bound to recognize their
needs and our responsibility to meet those needs.

I am told that there was some sentiment here last year for
abandoning our Evening Program. If that meant serving that part of
our new clientele in an expanded and modified regular program, well
and good.

 

 —6—

If it meant ignoring the people now served by the Evening Program, I
would urge us to take another look at our inclination. Our rules, our
programs, our courses, our standards, are all means to one end, which
is the enlightenment of our people and the enrichment of their lives
and the lives of those whom they serve. We have certainly been called
upon to hold fast to that which is good in our various disciplines, but
the good is not locked into our means of holding. These may be the times
thatrcall for unusual alertness, perception, and certainly flexibility.
We have at our disposal a machine that has already proved equal to
numerous challenges, some of them serious. With good will and help
from all of us it may prove equal to others and move us along faster
than we thought possible to the fulfillment of our role as a university
serving all the people of this state and elsewhere in the unique ways
proper to a true univerity, which is our mission and our excuse for
being.

Chairman Bryant was given a very enthusiastic applause.

Chairman Bryant recognized Professor Daniel Reedy. On recommendation of the College of
Pharmacy and on behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Reedy moved approval of the proposed
changes and additions to the admissions requirements in the College of Pharmacy, University
Senate Rules, IV, 2.2.2. This was circulated to members of the University Senate under date
of September 27, 1978.

Professor Lesshafft said that the changes were instigated by the Senate Committee on
Admissions and Academic Affairs. About 18 months ago the colleges who had more applicants
than spaces were requested to have a more definitive statement for their admissions
criteria. As a result the Admissions Committee of the College of Pharmacy made the current
revisions in the proposal.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion.

Professor Hanau suggested that on page 2, the last paragraph, first sentence be changed
from:

'...program in the College of Pharmacy will be limited to no more
than 10%.”

”...program in the College of Pharmacy generally will be limited
to no more than 10%.”

The Chair asked Professor Lesshafft if he would accept the modification, and Professor
Lesshafft accepted the change.

Dean Sands asked if the College of Pharmacy were omitting organic chemistry.

Professor Lesshafft said it was omitted in error because there should be two semesters
of organic chemistry.

The Chair asked Professor Lesshafft if he would accept the modification that the revised
proposal read:

"two semesters of general chemistry-~with laboratory, including
qualitative analysis; two semesters of organic chemistry——with
laboratory...”

 

 _7._

Professor Lesshafft said that should have been in the revised as well as the current
requirements.

Professor Smith asked for clarification which stated that a number of students admitted
depended upon the availability of space, etc. and said that he preSumed the Senate was en—
dorsing the limited admissions program, which was not legal at the present time according to
the Senate Rules.

Professor Lesshafft responded that the current admissions requirements as printed on
the first page of the proposal have been in existence for years. He added that when they
were adopted there was no problem in admitting anyone that applied. The Proposed Admissions
Requirements have been made on a comparative and competitive basis.

The previous question was moved and passed.

The motion on the proposal, with two editorial changes, passed. The proposal as
modified is as follows:

Proposed Admissions Requirements:

IV, 2.2.2. College of Pharmacy — — The College offers two degree
programs, the Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy (B.S.)
and the Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm. D.). Each program
has its own admission requirements.

a. Requirements for Admission to the B.S. Program ~-
In order to be considered for admission to the B.S.
program, the applicant must have achieved a grade point
average of at least 2.50 in at least 66 credit hours of
acceptable college work, including: two semesters of
general chemistry — with laboratory, including quali—
tative analysis; two semesters of organic chemistry —
with laboratory; two semesters of general physics —
with laboratory; two semesters of English composition
(or otherwise have met the University English require-
ment); two semesters of biology — with laboratory; one
semester of microbiology — with laboratory; one semes—
ter of mathematics (analytics and calculus); one
semester of principles of economics; and additional
courses needed to complete the University's General
Area Studies requirement.

Applications for admission to the B.S. program are
reviewed and evaluated by the College of Pharmacy's
B.S. Admission Committee on a comparative and competi—
tive basis. Criteria used by the Committee in
judging the applicant's qualifications for admission
are: l) the applicant's previous academic record; 2)
the applicant's potential for academic achievement;
and 3) an assessment of the applicant's communicative
skills, integrity, commitment, dedication, motivation,
character, maturity and emotional stability as deter-
mined by letters of recommendation, and applicant's
formal motivation letter and by personal interviews.

 

 —8—

The number of students admitted to the B.S. program in the
College of Pharmacy each year is dependent upon the avail—
ability of resources (faculty, clinical facilities, space)
for implementation of a quality educational program. There*
fore, previous admission to the University does not
guarantee admission to the College of Pharmacy.

Priority for admission will be awarded to those applicants
who complete all pre—pharmacy requisities by the end of the
spring (or quarter) semester preceding the fall admissions.

The admission of non—residents of Kentucky to the B.S.
program in the College of Pharmacy generally will be limited
to no more than 10%. Priority for the admission of non—
residents will be given to those who have completed their
pre—pharmacy course work on the Lexington campus and/or to
those who have exceptional qualifications of academic
excellence.

The B.S. Admission Committee cannot consider applications
for transfer from other colleges of pharmacy when the
applicant has previously been denied admission to this
College's B.S. program or when the maximum number of stu—
dents are already enrolled in the program.

b. Requirements for Admission to the Pharm. D. Program ——
Admission to the Pharm. D. degree program is available to
selected highly qualified individuals holding a Bachelor

of Science in Pharmacy degree from a college of pharmacy
accredited by the American Council on Pharmaceutical
Education, or to selected highly qualified students who

are currently enrolled in the University of Kentucky College
of Pharmacy and have completed the fourth year of the B.S.
in Pharmacy curriculum.

The number of students admitted to the Pharm. D. degree pro—
gram is limited, and depends upon the availability of re—
sources (faculty, clinical facilities, space) for the
implementation of a quality educational program.

Applications for admission to the Pharm. D. degree program
are reviewed and evaluated by the College of Pharmacy

Pharm. D. Admission Committee on a comparative and competi—
tive basis. The Committee ordinarily denies admission if
the cumulative pharmacy grade point average is less than
3.0. The applicants who are judged by the Committee to be
the most qualified are invited for personal interviews

after which the final selections are made. Criteria used by
the Committee in judging the applicant's demonstrated
academic and professional achievements; and 2) an assessment
of the applicant's communicative skills, integrity, commit—
ment, dedication, motivation, character, maturity and
emotional stability as determined by letters of recommenda—
tion, the applicant's formal letter of application and
personal interviews.

Proposed Implementation Date: Spring, 1979.

 

 

 __9_

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy, who on behalf of the Senate Council
recommended approval of the proposed ”Academic Performance Policy” for the College of
Allied Health. This had been circulated to members of the University Senate under date
of September 28, l978.

Chairman Bryant asked Professor Anne Stiene—Martin to come forward for any comments
she might care to make and to answer questions.

Professor Stiene—Martin’s remarks follow;

The Faculty of the College of Allied Health Professions has
always believed that there must he some means by which a failing stu—
dent can be suspended from the professional curriculum. The reasons
are several:

Our moral obligation to the future consumer of our graduate's
skills (that is, the patient).

The economic factor involved when there is limited enroll-
ment. This has been addressed within the introduction of
the proposed policy you have before you.

The realization that the student selection process is still

a crude science (at best) and that grade—point average based
on pre—professional courses does not always indicate poten—

tial professional ability.

The realization that we are actually performing a disservice

to the flunking student by allowing that student to cycle
back through the professional curriculum once or twice in
order to graduate, because the chances are quite high that
Such a graduate will be unable to master the external
certifying or licensing examination which most of our
graduates must face.

Up until 1976, our College operated under the assumption that
should such a case arise, action could be taken based on Senate
Rules Section V, Article 3.l3, sub—section (d) which addresses stu—
dent suspension and states ”A student who demonstrates that he
cannot or will not do satisfactory work.”

In Spring of l976, our College was informed that suspension
of a student from the professional curriculum is not possible
unless there exists some stated and approved policy which defines
the phrase ”...cannot or will not do satisfactory work.” Otherwise,
it was felt that 'due process' might be compromised.

Consequently, the College's Standards Committee undertook the
task of formulating such a policy. It turned out to be a massive
project. Input from the College‘s Student Advisory Council was
obtained through the two student representatives who have been mem—
bers of the Standards Committee between 1976 and 1978. Input was
also sought and obtained from the Medical Center Academic Council
and from the Senate's Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards.

“OVC 1"“

 

 What you have before you is the result of at least three major
re-writes based on the comments and suggestions received. We feel
that this policy is fair and equitable and that the proposed means
of administering the policy negates the possibility of arbitrary
action.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion.

Professor Ford said that he did not know what the statement ”student shall be subject
to review for dismissal from the program by the Dean of the College” meant. Did this mean
they would be reviewed or not be reviewed——who would make the decision?

Professor Stiene—Martin responded that the records would be sent to the Academic Per—
formance Committee for review. Following the APC's decision, the recommendation would be
sent to the Dean for action.

Professor Ford said that it seemed ambiguous to him because in the statement it was
as though the Dean would be doing the reviewing but, in fact, it was the Academic Perfor-
mance Committee.

Chairman Bryant said that dismissal was not automatic if a student made below a 2.0
but that review was. He asked if the statement ”shall be reviewed for dismissal” could be
accepted. Professor Stiene—Martin accepted the revision.

Professor Ford asked what would happen in a situation when there would be no documented
evidence.

Professor Stiene—Martin accepted the editorial change of deleting ”documented.” Number
A would read:

"...recommendation of dismissal there shall be evidence that the

student...”

HFor a recommendation of retention there shall be evidence of a
temporary condition such as an ..”

Student Senator Ratcliff moved that the statement under Academic Performance Policy be:

"Any student making a G.P.A. below 2.0 in_£equired courses for any
semester after admission to a professional program...”

The motion was seconded.

Professor Weil asked if the consensus was that there were electives in the program or
electives that had nothing to do with the program.

Professor Stoner replied that in the Community Health Program there were a number of
electives that were not required courses for graduation.

The previous question was moved and passed.

The motion to amend the proposal failed.

 

 -11-

Professor Kemp recommended the retention of the wor ”documented” for dismissal but
not necessarily for retention.

Professor Weil moved that the words ”cannot” and ”will not" be changed to ”does not”
and to retain the word ”documented.” The motion thus amended would read:

”For a recommendation of dismissal there shall be documented evidence
that the student does not perform at an acceptable level.''

The motion was seconded and passed.

Dr. Langston asked what would happen to a student who was not suspended from the
University but was suspended from the professional program.

Professor Stiene—Martin said that the student could go into another program. She
added that a student's inability to perform in a professional school did not reflect a
student's ability to perform in another profession or another basic science.

After further discussion concerning methods of appeal for the student, Professor
Westley moved, and the motion was seconded, to return the proposal to the Senate Committee
on Academic Standards for consideration of the appropriate appeal process.

The previous question was moved and passed.

The Substitute motion that the proposal be returned to the Committee failed with a
vote of 76 to 34.

Professor Baumgartner moved, and the motion was seconded, that the following be added
to Item