xt7ngf0mwm6b https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7ngf0mwm6b/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1972-03-13  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, March 13, 1972 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 13, 1972 1972 1972-03-13 2020 true xt7ngf0mwm6b section xt7ngf0mwm6b  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
  
 
  
   

 

 

._ LLLL

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 13, 1972

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 13,
1972, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Flickinger presided. Members
absent: Staley F. Adams*, Arnold D. Albright, Lawrence A. Allen, Richard L. Anderson’
James R. Barclay*, Charles E. Barnhart, Harmon C. Bickley*, Robert H. Biggerstaff,
Harold R. Binkley*, Harry M. Bohannan*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Garnett L. Bradford,
Betty J. Brannan*, Michael Bruer*, Collins W. Burnett*, David B. Clark*, Glenn B.
Collins*, Lewis Colten, Raymond H. Cox, Glenwood L. Creech, Guy M. Davenport*,
George W. Denemark*, Joel Evans, Paul T. Ferrell*, Juanita Fleming*, Lawrence Forgy,
Stuart Forth, Donald T. Frazier*, James E. Funk*, George H. Gadbois*, Eugene B.
Gallagher*, Art Gallaher*, Charles P. Graves, Thomas C. Gray*, Jack E. Hall,
Joseph Hamburg, Denny 0. Harris*, Virgil W. Hays*, Nancy H. Holland*, Robert M.
Ireland*, Raymon D. Johnson, William S. Jordan*, Fred E. Justus, Stuart M. Klein*,
Lois W. Langhorst, Bruce E. Langlois, Robert G. Lawson, Sara H. Leech, Thomas J.
Leonard*, Charles T. Lesshafft, Donald L. Madden*, Paul Mandelstam*, Leslie L.
Martin*, Roger M. McCoy*, William C. McCrary*, Ernest P. McCutcheon*, Marion E.
McKenna*, George E. Mitchell*, James T. Moore, Alvin L. Morris, Thomas P. Mullaney*,
Franklin W. Nooe, Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Paul F. Parker*, Nancy J. Patton*, Curtis
Phipps, Nicholas J. Pisacano, Leonard A. Ravitz*, E. Douglas Rees*, Herbert G. Reid*,
Gerald I. Roth*, Robert W. Rudd*, John S. Scarborough*, Jon M. Shepard*, D. Milton
Shuffett, Otis A. Singletary*, Raymond A. Smith*, John B. Stephenson, Hugh A. Storrowflfi
W. Paul Street*, Thomas B. Stroup, Dennis D. Stuckey*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, j
Charles G. Talbert, Damon R. Talley*, Norman L. Taylor, H. Mac Vandiviere*, John A.
Via, M. Stanley Wall, David R. Wekstein, James H. Wells, Harry E. Wheeler, Paul K.
Whitaker*, William R. Willard, Alfred D. Winer*, Ernest F. Witte*, A. Wayne
Wonderley*, Leon Zolondek*.

 

Chairman Flickinger reminded the Senators of the remaining two regular Senate I ‘ f
meetings of April 10th and May 8th and reported that at least one special meeting
for April 3rd would be called in order to take care of some backlog of business,
namely, the Arts and Sciences proposal for the new degree, the proposed revision of
the requirements for the A.B. and B.S. degrees, and the Code of Faculty Responsi—
bilities which would be scheduled for action at the special meeting (the Code
was handed to the Senators preceding the meeting and will be mailed to the faculty). fl
He reported further that an open hearing on the Code for the Faculty and 1*
students will be held soon, the date, location and time yet to be determined. He
stated that the many letters and suggestions submitted by the Senate and faculty
had been taken into consideration in this rewriting and it was believed this
revision was a considerable improvement over the first attempt. He suggested that
the faculty call the Senate Council Office or any member of the Senate Council prior
to the April 3rd meeting if they wished to make any suggested editorial changes in

the Code.

Chairman Flickinger reported that the annual recognition dinner for retiring
faculty in all Colleges would be held in the Student Center Ballroom on the evening
of April 3, 1972 and that a formal announcement of that dinner would be released

soon .

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 14, 1972 were approved as
circulated.

The Chairman then called on Dr. Sheldon Rovin, Chairman of the ad_hoc Committee ;
on Accelerated Programs, who reported that the Committee had reworked '

*Absence explained

      
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
   

XE

. u.
u I

run
my

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont

Recommendations #s 5,6, and 7 (circulated to the faculty under date of
February 23,1972) as directed by the Senate at its meeting of February 14,
He then presented Recommendation #5 and opened the floor for
discussion. Recommendation #5 as circulated reads:

SPECIAL EXAMINATION FOR CREDIT:

Any student, whether full-time or part—time, enrolled in the

University shall be given a special examination for credit, provided
the request for the examination is approved by the department chair—
man requested to give the examination (Lr in the case Lf graduate
students, the Dean Lf the Graduate School) subject to the criteria

 

 

listed below. Application by the student must be made in writing

to this person. It is the responsibility of the examiner to report
the credit obtained to the Registrar. It shall be the responsibility
of the student to determine that the credit to be obtained is not
duplicative of that already earned.

(a) A full or part—time student in good academic standing may
be given a special examination upon written application to the
appropriate department chairman (Lr in the case Lf graduate
students, the Dean Lf the Graduate _School) regardless of whether
the student has audited the course, is currently enrolled in

it, or has studied for it independently.

 

 

(b) The chairman (gr_Dean 9£_the Graduate School) may deny the
student's request only if he decides that the student has failed
to furnish evidence that he is reasonably prepared to take the
examination, or if the department chairman or Dean 9£_the Graduate

 

 

School determines the course to be of such nature that credit by
special examination would be inappropriate. (The fact that a
student has failed the course within the last semester may be
regarded as evidence that the student is unprepared to take— a
special examination.)

*(c) The instructor may schedule this examination at his con—
venience but must offer it within a reasonable period of time
of the student's written request so as to permit the student to
enter another course under procedures to be formulated by the
Dean of Admissions and Registrar (said procedures to include
approval of the respective department chairman, Dean Lf the
Graduate School or instructor as_ appropriate), The instructor
shall inform the Registrar of the student's grade in the course.
However, a student currently enrolled in a course, who takes a
special examination and is dissatisfied with the results may
continue in the course and be graded in the usual manner.

(The instructor may or may not include the results of this
examination in computing the final grade.)

 

(d) A grade reported for a special examination shall be counted
as residence credit and at the student's option, may or may not
be counted as part of the student's regular course load.

**(e) The student, at his option, or with the department chairman's

*Have financial or administrative implications

[
ii
m

J
l

 

       
  
   
  
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
 
   
    
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont 3317

consent) may take the examination on a Pass—Fail basis. If he

i does, he shall not be restricted to the courses available under
the Pass—Fail option, and shall be entitled to take the maximum

€§§$ number of courses available under Pass—Fail rules. (**Alternative

for Senate action)

completes a special examination shall be formally removed from
the official class roll of that class by the Registrar after
the granting of credit.

t (f) A student currently enrolled in a class who successfully
1

(g) Community College directors are encouraged to administer
\ special examinations for their students for courses taught in
" their colleges. Transfer of this credit will depend upon the
transferability of the course under established provisions.

1
i
w .
1
a

‘ *(h) lt_i§_recommended that students taking special examinations
‘ for credit be_included in_the calculation 9f_the load g£_the
% instructor and the department.

 

 

 

 

_____-__ __ from (e), page 4
of the circulation of February 23, 1972. The Senate approved this motion.
1 Paragraph (e) as approved by the Senate reads as follows:

? Motion was made to delete the words "at his option,_or

‘ (e) The student, with the department chairman's consent, may take
‘ the examination on a Pass—Fail basis. If he does, he shall not be
restricted to the courses available under the Pass—Fail option,

I and shall be entitled to take the maximum number of courses

I

 

available under Pass—Fail rules. ll'. 3

, Dr. Rovin referred the Senate to page 3, line 8 of the cichlarization,
l which reads:

 

‘ ”. . . It shall be the responsibility of the student to determine uh“?
i that the credit to be obtained is not duplicative of that ffl‘ f:?
already earned." Jfi‘ E'g

 

and stated that a recommendation had been received by the Committee to change m
that sentence in order to keep the existing restriction on the repeat of g}
} courses and to enable the use of special examination as an option. He then ‘
read the proposed revision of that sentence and indicated that the Committee
considered it superior to what was in the Recommendation and would like to
substitute if the Senate concurred.

 

\
[ Existing restrictions on the repeat of courses which have been
i completed with a grade of B or better apply to these special

‘ examinations. A student may use the special examination grade
[ as one of his authorized repeat options.

1
l
r

The Senate accepted this rewording.

Dr. Rovin referred the Senate to page 4 (d) of the circularization
g; ‘ which reads:

 

*Have financial or administrative implications

  

  

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont

"(d) A grade reported for a special examination shall be counted
as residence credit and at the student's option, may or may not be
counted as part of the student's regular course load.”

He then reported that a recommendation had been made to change (d) to read:

(d) A grade reported for a special examination shall be counted as
residence credit and as part of the student's load for that semester.
The limits on maximum loads are waived in cases where the excess

is due to special examination credits.

He stated that this revision placed it on a more legalistic basis, allowing
for a waiver of the Rules rather than an interpretation of the statement. The
Senate accepted this revision of (d) as presented by Dr. Rovin.

Discussion ensued concerning the interpretation of the words "residence
credit” in (d) following which motion was made and approved to change that
part of (d) to read:

"(d) A grade reported for a special examination shall be counted
as academic credit and may be counted as residence credit by the
Dean of the student's College . . .".

Motion was then made to amend Recommendation #5 to substitute the words ”on
the recommendation of the respective Dean of the College and with the approval
of the Dean of the Graduate School” for "Dean of the Graduate School”

wherever this appears in the Recommendation. It was determined that this
change would need to be made in the first paragraph, in (a), two places in
(b), and in (c) of Recommendation #5. The initiator of the motion then
accepted a recommended minor alteration to change the proposed substitution

to read "on the recommendation of the respective Director of Graduate Studies
and with the approval of the Dean of the Graduate School.”

Motion was made to amend the amendment to delete ”and with the approval of
the Dean of the Graduate School.” The Senate voted to disapprove this pro-
posed amendment to the amendment.

The Senate then approved the amendment to substitute ”on the recommendation
of the respective Director of Graduate Studies and with the approval of the
Dean of the Graduate School" in place of "Dean of the Graduate School”

in the first paragraph, in (a), in two places in (b), and in (c) of Recommen-
dation #5.

It was suggested that the word "only" in line two of (b), page 3, be deleted
and the Committee agreed.

The Senate voted to approve Recommendation #5 as circulated under date of

February 23, 1972, and amended. That Recommendation as presented, amended,
and approved, reads as follows:

SPECIAL EXAMINATION FOR CREDIT:

Any student, whether full—time or part—time enrolled in the
University shall be given a special examination for credit, pro—
vided the request for the examination is approved by the depart—

    
 
   
  
   
    
   
   
  
    
  
   
 
   
  
   
  
   
    
    
    

 

  

 

*Have financial or administrative implications

   
  
 
 
   
   
  
   
   
  
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont 3319

ment chairman requested to give the examination (or in the
case of graduate students, on the recommendation of the
respective Director of Graduate Studies and with the approval
of the Dean of the Graduate School) subject to the criteria
listed below. Application by the student must be made in writing
to this person. It is the responsibility of the examiner to
report the credit obtained to the Registrar. Existing restric—
tions on the repeat of courses which have been completed with

a grade of B or better apply to these special examinations. A
student may use the special examination grade as one of his
authorized repeat options.

(a) A full or part—time student in good academic standing
may be given a special examination upon written application
to the appropriate department chairman (or in the case of
graduate students, on the recommendation of the respective
Director of Graduate Studies and with the approval of the
Dean of the Graduate School) regardless of whether the
student has audited the course, is currently enrolled in it,
or has studied for it independently.

(b) The chairman (or Dean of the Graduate School, upon
recommendation of the respective Director of Graduate

Studies) may deny the student's request if he decides that

the student has failed to furnish evidence that he is
reasonably prepared to take the examination, or if the de-
partment chairman or Dean of the Graduate School, upon
recommendation of the respective Director of Graduate Studies,
determines the course to be of such nature that credit by
special examination would be inappropriate. (The fact that

a student has failed the course within the last semester may
be regarded as evidence that the student is unprepared to take
a special examination.)

*(c) The instructor may schedule this examination at his
convenience but must offer it within a reasonable period
of time of the student's written request so as to permit
the student to enter another course under procedures to
be formulated by the Dean of Admissions and Registrar
(said procedures to include approval of the respective de-
partment chairman, instructor, or Dean of the Graduate School
upon recommendation of the respective Director of Graduate
Studies, as appropriate). The instructor shall inform the
Registrar of the student's grade in the course. However,
a student currently enrolled in a course, who takes a
special examination and is dissatisfied with the results may
continue in the course and be graded in the usual manner.
(The instructor may or may not include the results of this
examination in computing the final grade.)

(d) A grade reported for a special examination shall be
counted as academic credit and may be counted as residence

  

  

 

 

     
  
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
 
 
 
   
    
  
  
  
   
  
   
 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont

credit by the Dean of the student's college and as part of
the student's load for that semester. The limits on maximum loads [
are waived in cases where the excess is due to special examination 65
credits. 3

(e) The student, with the department chairman's consent, may i
take the examination on a PaSSNFail basis. If he does, he shall s
not be restricted to the courses available under the Pass—Fail I
option, and shall be entitled to take the maximum number of r
courses available under Pass—Fail rules.

(f) A student currently enrolled in a class who successfully com— I
pletes a special examination shall be formally removed from the

official class roll of that class by the Registrar after the

granting of credit. [

I

(g) Community College directors are encouraged to administer

special examinations for their students for courses taught in ,
their colleges. Transfer of this credit will depend upon the .
transferability of the course under established provisions. ‘9”

*(h) It is recommended that students taking special examinations [
for credit be included in the calculation of the load of the
instructor and the department.

I
Dr. Rovin presented Recommendation #6 for discussion. Suggestion was made [

and accepted to change the word ”under" in line 2 to "through”. With this minor

change the Senate then voted to accept Recommendation #6 as circulated. This

Recommendation as circulated and approved with minor change, reads: [

(

 

 

*It is recommended that the President coordinate accelerated programs

through an appropriate academic administrative officer, with the appoint- '
ment of individual directors of the separate functions of CLEP, CEEB—AP, [
UK Summer Programs, etc., if he deems desirable, for the purpose of ‘
making information on accelerated programs available and that this
academic officer report to the Senate, at least annually, on the progress
and use of accelerated programs, with recommendations for modification

if desired. {

 

 

 

Dr. Rovin presented Recommendation #7 and the Senate approved this Recommendation
without discussion. Recommendation #7 as circulated and approved, reads:

 

OTHER RULES AFFECTED BY THE ACCELERATED PROGRAMS REPORT: (Codification
required into the Rules 9f_the University Senate):

 

(

I

I
(1) Editorial change in the section of the Rules dealing with [
Examinations so that Entrance, Final, Special Examination, CLEP, {
CEEB—AP are set forth. I
(2) Section on Reporting Final Grades (p. 38): Add "Except that credit [
obtained by special examination shall be reported in accordance with
rules governing special examination."

financial or administrative implications

  

 .‘yNu: 7.;

  

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont

 
   
   
   
  
  
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
    
  
   
  
  
 
 
 
   
   
  
  
  
 

\
( (3) Under the Rules, where appropriate, add ”No more than oner

half of his graduation credit may be obtained by examination,
figgfi including special examination, CEEB-AP, CLEP, Extension or
‘ Correspondence."

{ (4) On page 48 of the Rules, (g) General Rules for Students Under
1 Academic Suspension, add ”Nor take any examination for University

 

 

of Kentucky credit while on academic suspension or probation."

(5) On page 52 of the Rules, H., add ”including examinations”

to the end of the first paragraph. Also if, add the following
sentence: "Credit granted by examination, as prescribed in

these Rules shall count in determining a student's classification."

l
l
f The Chairman called on the Secretary of the Senate Council, Mr. Howell
l Hopson, who presented a recommendation from the Senate Advisory Committee
on Student Affairs, to change Section V. A. 6, of the Rules of the University a 3
‘%QA Senate as follows. He stated that this proposal had the approval of the i !
IIA‘ K
I
l
l
i

 

Senate Council.

1
\
Section V. A. 6. Evaluation 2f_Student Character 9£_Ability: -— E
Good—faith judgments of ability or character may be provided under 3 i

\

 

circumstances considered appropriate by the profession. Adverse
judgments will not be volunteered by a faculty member, but may be

given in response to a legitimate inquiry or as a result of a student's
request for a recommendation. A student should be informed either U.
personally or through his/her appropriate records of all inquiries about ‘3 g‘}
that student directed to faculty members and that a judgment has or will
be given. Records containing information about a student's character

or ability will indicate when the information was provided, by whom,

and the position of this individual.

The recommendation was seconded.

On behalf of the Rules Committee, Professor Alfred Crabb, its Chairman, presented
a substitute motion as follows, which was seconded:

 

Section V. A. 6., Evaluation 9f_Student Character and Ability: —— ‘ ,
A student has the right to have his character and ability evaluated v E‘é
only by individuals with a personal knowledge of him, and upon request, ; ‘
to be informed that such an evaluation has been or will be made. Records ‘ iii
containing information about a student's character and ability shall 2 fl
indicate when the information was provided, by whom, and the position ‘ ‘ fl
of this individual. ‘ “i

 

Following an explanation of the Rules Committee's reasons for presenting a
simpler version of the proposed Rules change, debate ensued.

Question was called and the Senate voted to step debate on the substitute motion.

By a hand count of 57 to 33 the Senate then voted to accept the substitute motion
as presented by Professor Crabb for the Rules Committee as the motion on the
floor for its consideration.

 

 

  

Motion was made to amend the motion to change the second sentence to read:

  

 

 

 

 

 

3322 Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 - cont

”. . .Records containing information about a student's

character and ability shall indicate when the information
was provided, by whom, the position of the individual making
the evaluation, and the reasons for undertaking this
evaluation."

Following discussion question was called and the Senate voted to stop debate
on the proposed amendment to the motion on the floor.

The Senate then voted to disapprove the proposed amendment.

Motion was then made to amend the proposal on the floor to strike the entire
last sentence. The Chairman responded that since this motion would change
the presently existing Rules of the University Senate which were not a part
of the motion on the floor, his motion was out of order.

 

Again, question was called and the Senate voted to stop debate on the pro—
posed motion on the floor.

By a hand count of 46 to 33 the Senate then voted to approve the proposed change
in Section V. A. 6., Evaluation of Student Character and Ability, as presented
by Professor Crabb for the Rules Committee.

Motion was made and seconded to waive the Rules 9f_the University Senate
in order to make the proposed change in the Rules which had been presented and
ruled out of order by the Chairman earlier. The Chairman stated that since the
proposed Rules change had not been circulated, the Rules governing circulation
would also need to be waived. It was also pointed out that a waiver of the
Rules required a two—thirds majority vote.

 

 

At this point call for a quorum was made. It was determined that a quorum
was present.

The Senate then defeated the motion to waive the Rules.

The Chairman announced that the next item on the agenda concerned the
proposed change in the University Regulations regarding one of the component
requirements for graduation, that of English Composition (circulated to the
faculty under date of March 1, 1972). He then called on Mr. Hopson, who
stated that while the curricular change on page 1 of the circularization did
not require action, a change in the Rules needed to be made in order to im—
plement the curricular change. He then presented the following recommendation
for change in the Rules of the University Senate, Section III, Commencement
£29 Graduation; 2. Requirements for Graduation, third paragraph, page 41.
He stated further that a minor change should be made in the proposal as
acntained in the March 1 circularization and he read the minor change into
the proposed change as he presented it.

 

” . .Two semesters of Freshman English or their equivalent are

required of each student unless he demonstrates competency accord—
ing to the exemption plans specified in the Catalog. A full—time
student must enroll in Freshman English each semester until he

has satisfied this requirement unless (l) he qualifies for a
one—semester option, in which case he may enroll during either
semester of his freshman year; or (2) the program of his College
or department requires postponement of the second course.

 

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

  

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont

This recommendation was seconded.

Chairman Flickinger referred to the curricular change which did not require
Senate action and which would go into the General Catalog. He stated that
where the word "take" or ”taking" was used, it should be changed to
”satisfactorily complete" or "satisfactorily completing" so that the
curricular change would read:

The University requires demonstrated competency in English
Composition. Competency may be demonstrated in the following
ways: (1) Students who have a raw score of 21 and below on
the English section of the ACT must satisfactorily complete
two semesters of composition: English 101 in their first
semester at the University and either English 102, English
105 or English 203. If they elect English 102 or 105, they
must take it the second semester of their freshman year.

(2) Students who have a raw score of 22 and above on the
English section of the ACT may by—pass English 101 and
satisfactorily complete either English 102 or 105. If they
receive a grade of B or better, they will have fulfilled the
English Composition requirement, but if they receive a grade
of C, or D, they have the following options: (a) satisfactorily
completing the other course or (b) satisfactorily completing
English 203. Full—time students who qualify for the one—
semester option may enroll in English Composition either
semester of their Freshman year.

Question was called and the Senate voted to act on the motion on the floor.

The Senate then approved the recommendation as presented by Mr. Hopson to
change Section III, Commencement and Graduation; 2. Requirements for
Graduation, third paragraph on page 41, of the Rules gf_the University

Senate.

The Chairman asked the Senate for an expression of its preference con—
cerning an open hearing for faculty and students on the Code of Faculty
Responsibilities. The Senate agreed to hold the open hearing on Monday,
March 27th, at 3:00 p.m., the location to be announced.

The Chairman reported that the results of the action ballot taken to
establish a Department of Rehabilitation Medicine in the College of
Medicine had been overwhelmingly approved and that the proposal would be
transmitted to the President for recommendation to the Board of Trustees,

to become effective upon Board approval. That proposal, as approved, is
made a part of these minutes.

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

THE CREATION OF A
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE

W

The College of Medicine recommends the establishment of a Department

   
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
    
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
   

 

      
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

3324 Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont

of Rehabilitation Medicine to serve the educational, research, and
patient care programs of the University of Kentucky Medical Center.

 

Local Background

Since the opening of the Medical Center, the Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation program of the College of Medicine has been administered 1
as a division or section of the Department of Medicine. The Director of
the program presently has his academic base in that department, and works {
closely with the Department of Physical Therapy in the College of Allied [
Health Professions. Both units share the modern facilities of University
Hospital, and have developed effective working relationships with state I
and national vocational rehabilitation programs. New facilities and
operational support will soon become available with the activation of the
University Division of the Lexington Veterans Administration Hospital, {
the addition of which makes it desirable — and possible — to establish ‘
a separate Department of Rehabilitation Medicine to serve the College
of Medicine, University Hospital, and the Veterans Administration [
Hospital. %

N
This new department will combine available resources to expand ‘
the educational opportunities for medical and other students, and to [
provide improved guidance as to what services are available, which (
patients are and are not candidates for rehabilitation, and which
should be tested in appropriate work evaluation programs. The depart— l
ment's educational responsibility will include the development of a 1
training program for Residents in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. [
Currently, there are only two certified specialists in this field in
Kentucky. It is hoped that the department might affiliate with such units {
as the 200 bed rehabilitation facility recently constructed in Thelma,
Johnson County, with other community hospitals, and with specialized pro— [
grams for the care of the handicapped or disabled child or adult. [
l

 

General Background

 

A greater emphasis on rehabilitation in academic medical centers
is desirable for a number of reasons. In the last quarter century, there ‘
has been a substantial increase both in the gross number of disabled |
persons, and in the percentage of the population which suffers from long- [
{

 

term illnesses and substantial physical impairments. It is now recognized

that medical care cannot be considered complete until the patient with

a residual physical ability has been trained "to live and work with what

he has left." This is the objective of rehabilitation. Except in a i
few isolated instances, the physically handicapped person can and must (
be retrained to walk and travel, to care for his daily needs, to use ‘
normal methods of transportation, to use ordinary toilet facilities, to I
apply and remove his own prosthetic devices, and to communicate either [
orally or in writing. These are such simple things that they are fre—

quently overlooked, but the personal, vocational, and social success of l
the handicapped person is dependent upon them. It is estimated that I
there are 289,000 physically disabled persons in Kentucky, 150,000 ‘tgz
of whom could be candidates for rehabilitation. “j'

 

  

 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
   
  

Minutes of the University Senate, March 13, 1972 — cont

Patient Care

The practice of rehabilitation begins with the belief in the
basic philosophy that the physician's responsibility does not end
when the acute illness is ended or surgery completed; it ends only
when the individual is retrained to the maximum extent possible.
This basic concept can be achieved only if rehabilitation is con—
sidered an integral part of medical services. Within the general
hospital rehabilitation services should be brought to the patient
at the earliest possible time to alleviate or minimize costly and
damaging physical, emotional, social and vocational sequelae of
the acute disease process or trauma. A University Medical Center
requires a rehabilitation program where the ”team approach", using .
the specialized skills of the physician, physical therapist, é
occupational therapist, social