xt7nk9315t95 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7nk9315t95/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1983-04-11  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, April 11, 1983 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 11, 1983 1983 1983-04-11 2020 true xt7nk9315t95 section xt7nk9315t95 LflWVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

April 1, 1983

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet on Monday, April 11, 1983 at 3:00 p.m. in
the Classroom Building, room 106.

AGENDA:

1) Minutes of March 21, 1983.

2) Chairman's Remarks.

3) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V., 2.4.1

relative to the Absence Policy. (Circulated under date of March
31, 1983.)

 

Proposed change in Graduate Faculty Rules regarding transfer of
credits. (Circulated under date of March 31, 1983.)

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V., 1.8.3,
Grades for Students Who Withdraw or are Dropped. (Circulated under
date of March 31, 1983.)

 

 

Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section VI., 1.7, Atten—
dance and Participation During Appeal. (Circulated under date of
March 31, 1983)

 

 

Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section VI., 1.3 (b)
concerning Academic Evaluation. (Circulated under date of April 1, 1983)

 

Proposed selective admissions: Commuter Science. (Circulated under
date of April 1, 1983)

Proposed selective adnissions for Allied Health Educator. (Circulated
under date of April 1, 1933).

Proposed change in University grading system. (Circulated under date
of March 31, 1983).

Proposed statements on sexual harassment in University Senate Rules
Section VII, Faculty Code, and in Section VI, Student Academic Af—
fairs. (Circulated under date of March 31, 1983.)

 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2
University Senate Agenda — April 11, 1983
April 1, 1983

12) Proposed changes in University Senate Rules, Section V1, 4.0 ff.
Disposition of Cases of Academic Offenses. (Circulated under date
of April 1, 1983.)

 

13) Recommendaticns from the Senate Research Committee. (Circulated
under date of March 31, 1983.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL ll, I983

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April
I, l983, in Room l06 of the Classroom Building.

Donald W. Ivey presided.

Members absent: R. A. Altenkirch*, Roger B. Anderson, Richard Angelo*,
James Applegate*, Charles Barnhart, John Baseheart, Trudi Bellardo*, Jacques
Benninga, Jack Blanton, James A. Boling, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom*,
Stanley D. Brunn*, Joseph T. Burch, Lois J. Campbell, David Chalk, Donald B.
Clapp, Charlotte Clark, D. Kay Clawson*, Dan Clifford*, Henry Cole*, Glenn B.
Collins, William L. Conger, Gary Cromwell, David E. Denton, Donald F. Diedrich,
Richard C. Domek, Joseph M. Dougherty, Herbert N. Drennon, Jeff Dwellen, Nancy
E. Dye, Anthony Eardley*, William Ecton*, Donald G. Ely*, Joseph L. Fink*, Ray
Forgue*, Donald T. Frazier*, Michael Freeman, Tim Freudenberg*, Richard W.
Furst, Art Gallaher, Jr., Charles P. Graves*, Thomas C. Gray, Joseph Hamburg,
Robert Hemenway*, Lenda Hisle*, Michael Hislope, Donald Hochstrasser*, Raymond
R. Hornback, Malcolm E. Jewell, Keith H. Johnson*, Peri Jean Kennedy*, Michael
Kirkhorn, Joseph Krislov*, Robert G. Lawson*, Gwendolen Lee*, David Lowery,
Bruce A. Lucas, Paul Mandeistam*, James R. Marsden, William L. Matthews, Joann
Maurer, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Marion E. McKenna*, Dominic Mudd, Daniel N.
Nelson, David S. Newburg*, Robert C. Nobel*, Clayton Omvig*, Leonard K. Peters,
Janet Pisaneschi*, David Prior*, Thomas Roszman, Thomas A. Rush, Edgar Sagan,
Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith, Stanford L. Smith*, Teresa Stathas, Marjorie
Stewart*, Joseph V. Swintosky*. Glenn Terndrup*, John Thompson*, Manuel A.
Tipgos*, Lee T. Todd, S. Sidney Ulmer, Richard Underwood, Marc J. Wallace*,
Terry Warren, David Webster*, Charles Wethington, Paul A. Willis, Alfred D.
Winer*, Constance L. Wood

There was no action taken on the minutes of the meeting of March 2l, l983,
because they had not been circulated. There was a correction to be made on page
l3. The linear equation should be EGPA = -O.443 + 0.0534 ACT + 0.286 HSGPA.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

”Jim Alcorn who has been the sergeant-at-arms for five
years is retiring from the University; therefore he is re—
tiring from his position as sergeant-at—arms. We will
miss him and will have to find someone else.

This will be the last meeting of the senate unless we
do not get through the agenda. I warn you about this ahead
of time in case some of you have barrels of rhetoric you want
to avail yourself of. I hope we can get through today.

I want to congratulate the senate on working through the
selective admissions process. Although we got some bad press,

1'

1 think you are to be congratulated.

The Ombudsman's report will be delivered in the fall
semester because it is not ready for the spring. You can
look forward to that as well as meeting the new Ombudsman who
has not yet been chosen.

I would like to ask that the senate waive the ten-day
circulation rule on the agenda items. Because there is lag

*Absence explained

 

 -2-
time in duplicating and mailing, the agenda items were late.“

There was no objection. The order of the agenda was changed in order to
discuss the Computer Science Proposal first so that the entire meeting would not
be televised.

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the
proposed selective admissions in computer science. Professor Rees, on behalf of
the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal which was
circulated to members of the senate under date of April l, 1983. Professor
James Wells was present to answer questions.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Senator Yeh felt it was
a shame to limit enrollment in the department but the question was whether to
have a lot of students getting a poor program or have students who have demonstrated
their ability the opportunity to have a good program. He was in favor of the
proposal. Dean Ockerman said that he didn't see how the computer science proposal
could be implemented in the Fall l983 registration. He wanted to wait until
Spring l984. The Chairman said the proposal would have no effect on juniors and
that way it would be put off for a whole year. Professor Wells spoke against
the delay because he felt the implementation difficulties for fall would be
minimal. The real conflict would be in completing the pre—major requirements.
He added there would not be a crunch this fall because the Computer Science
Department would be dealing with only a small number of students.

Following some further questions, the motion to adopt the Computer Science
Admissions Policy carried unanimously and reads as follows:

Admissions Policy

The Computer Science Program comprises a lower—division
component, consisting of lOO— and ZOO-level courses, and an
upper-division component or major based on 300—, 400- and
SOO—level courses. This division broadly corresponds to the
first two and last two years of the program.

The lower-division component is open to all students
who satisfy the listed prerequisites; however, admission to
the University and successful completion of the lower—divi—
sion component does ngt_guarantee admission to the Computer
Science major. Applicants seeking admission to the Computer
Science major will be judged on the criteria listed below.
The number of students admitted each academic year depends on
the availability of resources — faculty, space, computing
equipment — for the implementation of a high quality program.

Lower Division Admission

 

Admission to the University of Kentucky currently is
sufficient for admission to the College of Arts and Sciences
and to the lower-division component in Computer Science. Five
Computer Science courses are available to students who have
not been accepted for upper-division admission: CS lOl, lOZ,
250, 270, and CS/MA 240.

 

 Upper Division Admission

 

In order to qua1ify for the app1icant p001 and to be
e1igib1e for consideration for admission to a degree program
in Computer Science, a student must fu1fi11 the fo11owing
requirements:

1) Enro11ment in or, in case of transfer students, acceptance
for admission to the University of Kentucky.

2) Comp1etion of 60 semester hours and the Eng1ish require—
ment of the C011ege of Arts and Sciences.

Comp1etion of the required 1ower—division courses CS 101,
102, 250, 270, CS/MA 240, MA 113, 114, 213 with a minimum
GPA of 2.5.

App1icants from non-Eng1ish-speaking countries are re—
quired to take the Test of Eng1ish as Foreign Language
(TOEFL) and must attain a minimum score of 550.

Submission of an app1ication form to the Co11ege of Arts
and Sciences, accompanied by a current officia1 transcript
and a course p1an indicating that the course requirements
set forth in 2) and 3) wi11 be satisfied prior to admission
to the Computer Science major.

The fo11owing se1ection criteria wi11 be app1ied to the
app1icant p001:

Those with a minimum GPA of 3.0 in the required 1ower-
division CS/MA courses wi11 be admitted automatica11y.

Residua1 app1icants wi11 be 1inear1y ordered according to the
weighted average (0.4) Overa11 GPA + (0.5) GPA in L. Div.
CS/MA + (0.1) GPA in Eng1ish Composition and admitted to
the Computer Science major as resources permit.

In this se1ection process, specia1 consideration wi11 be
given those app1icants who, whi1e deficient in academic require—
ments, have demonstrated the essentia1 ski11s and inte11ectua1
capacity for success in the Computer Science major.*

Norma11y, students app1y for admission to the Computer
Science major in the second semester of their sophomore year
(the semester in which they wi11 have accumu1ated 60 semester
hours and comp1eted the 1ower—division CS/MA requirements). Thus
a11 grade—point averages used in the admissions procedure are
based on academic work preceding the semester of app1ication.
App1ications must be received by the Co11ege of Arts and Sciences
no 1ater than March 1 for the Fa11 semester and both Summer
Sessions, and by October 1 for the Spring semester.

*A student who has been denied admission wi11 have the right to appea1 to a
departmenta1 facu1ty committee.

 

 Those students approved for admission to the Computer Science
major will be allowed to advance register; however, those subse-
quently found deficient may be asked to withdraw from upper—
division Computer Science courses. Also, students who elect to
defer seeking admission should be aware that those already ad-
mitted will be given enrollment preference.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l983

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the
proposed change in the absence policy. Professor Rees, on behalf of the University
Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposed change in University Senate
Rules, Section V., 2.4.l relative to the Absence Policy which was circulated to

members of the senate under date of March 3l, l983.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Blues ques-
tioned how the policy could affect an instructor's absence policy which states
that a student was allowed I‘X” number of absences per semester. He asked how
certain absences which were excused would affect the policy. Professor Lacy's
understanding was that excused absences would be those where the students would
have an opportunity to make up the work. Professor Blues had a problem with that
because in some courses a great deal would depend upon work in class, particu—
larly in the writing courses in the English department. He moved that the
proposal be sent back to the committee for further study. The motion was se-
conded.

Following further discussion and debate, the motion to send the proposal
back to the committee for editorial and substantive changes passed.

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the
proposed change in Graduate Faculty Rules regarding transfer of credits. Pro—
fessor Rees, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of
the change which was circulated to member of the senate under date of March 3l,
l983. He said the proposal had been approved by the Graduate Council, the Gradu—
ate Faculty and the Senate Council.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Gesund didn't
see why a student could not go somewhere else for a semester and pick up nine
credits instead of having to transfer work prior to admission to the University.
He wanted the proposal revised so that a student could take courses elsewhere if
needed during the program. Dean Royster said that was already taken care of by a
visiting transient student status.

The motion in favor of the revision of the Graduate School rule passed
unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposal:[ revisions=underlined ]

With the approval of the student's adviser, or major pro—
fessor, the Director of Graduate Studies, and the Graduate
Dean, a maximum of nine semester hours or twenty—five per-
cent of the semester hours required for the degree con—
cerned (exclusive of resident or thesis credit), whichever
is greater, of regular graduate course credits earned prior

 

 -5-

to admission to a given graduate degree program may be
credited toward the minimum requirements of the Master's

or Specialist degree in that graduate program provided that
the grades earned were A or B. For example, such credits

may be earned (l) as a student in another graduate program

at the University of Kentucky, from which a degree was
awarded, (2) as a post-baccalaureate graduate student at the
University of Kentucky, or (3) as a graduate student at another
accredited graduate school. In the event a student offers
credits in more than one of these categories, the total to be
credited toward the degree still may not exceed nine hours or
twenty-fivegpercent of the semester hours required for the
degree concerned (exclusive of residence or thesis credit),
whichever is greater. In no case will independent work, re-
search, thesis or dissertation credit completed as a part of
degree requirements for one program be considered to satisfy
requirements of a subsequent master's program.

 

 

Rationale:

In the past, the Graduate School has allowed students to
transfer nine (9) hours toward a given graduate degree pro-
gram——that is, for programs in Plan A or Plan B at the master's
level which usually require up to 36 hours. In some professional
areas, however, the number of hours required for the degree is
larger; the proposal would permit those programs which require
more hours to accept a greater number of transfer credits to-
ward the degree.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l983.

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the
proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V., l.8.3, Grades for Students Who
Withdraw or are Dropped. Professor Rees, on behalf of the University Senate
Council, recommended approval of the change which was circulated to members of
the senate under date of March 3l, l983. Professor Rees said that the main
change was that the deans notify the instructors in writing when a student with-
draws from class after mid-semester.

 

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Gesund said
that his experience had been that a lot of nonacademic reasons for withdrawals
had been by students doing poorly in class. Very seldom had he seen students
withdraw who were doing well, and he felt deans should be checking with the
instructors before agreeing to a nonacademic reason for withdrawal. Professor
Blues agreed with Professor Gesund and proposed an amendment preceding the sen—
tence “If such a petition is approved by the dean of the student's college ..... ”

The amendment reads:

”Before acting on such a petition, the dean will consult with
the instructor of the class.”

Professor Gesund seconded the motion to amend.

 

 After brief debate, the previous question was moved and passed. Professor
Blues' motion to amend passed. The motion as amended passed unanimously and
reads as follows:

Proposal: [Additions and/or changes=underlined ]

V., l.8.3 A student may withdraw from a class during the
later half of the term upon approval by the
dean of the student's college of a petition
certifying urgent nonacademic reasons including
but not limited to:

l. Illness or injury of the student;
2. Serious personal or family problems;
3. Serious financial difficulties.

Before acting on such appetition, the dean will
consult with the instructor of the class. If
such a petition is approved by the dean of the
student's college, the dean shall inform in
writing the instructor of the class of his
action, and the student shall be assigned a
grade of w.

 

 

 

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l983.

Chairman Ivey recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the
addition to the University Senate Rules, Section VI., l.7, Attendance and Partici-
pation During Appeal. Professor Rees, on behalf of the University Senate Council,
recommended approval of the addition which was circulated to members of the
senate under date of March 3l, l983.

 

 

 

There were no questions or discussion and the motion as presented passed
unanimously and reads as follows:

Background:

The proposed addition was recommended by the Academic
Ombudsman and approved by the University Senate Council.

Proposal:

VI., l.7 Attendance and Participation During Appeal
Students shall have the right to attend classes,
to pursue their academic programs, and to
participate in University functions during the
consideration of any appeal.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l983.

Chairman Ivey again recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation
of the proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Section VI., l.3 (b),
concerning Academic Evaluation. This proposal was circulated to members of the
senate under date of April l, l983. The Chair said the proposal gave the stu-
dent a right to appeal anything rather than only a course grade, e.g. qualifying

 

 examinations.

Extensive discussion followed, principally centering on appeals by students
in professional programs where judgments are often based on criterion other than
grades in courses.

Professor Kemp said that in view of the fact the proposal was going to
create problems rather than solving them, he moved the proposal be tabled until
April l984. The motion was seconded. Professor Kemp's motion to table the pro—
posal was defeated.

Dean Royster moved to send the proposal to the appropriate committee to
discuss the various professional programs, what the relative issues were and then
to bring it back to the senate. The motion was seconded. The motion in favor of
returning the proposal to an appropriate committee passed.

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the
proposed selective admissions for Allied Health Education. Professor Rees, on
behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal
which was circulated to members of the senate under date of April l, l983. The
Chair said the proposal was part of a larger package which was to change the
program in Allied Health Education.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Lambert re-
sponded to questions related to the rationale behind the admissions standards
after which the motion in favor of the proposal passed unanimously and reads as
follows:

Change in Admissions Standards for Allied Health Education

 

Present: Completion of a two-year associate degree (or its
equivalent as determined by achievement on proficiency and/or
equivalency examinations acceptable to the University) from
an accredited program in an allied health discipline.

Change to: Entry is permitted to those who complete an
accredited program in an allied health discipline and the
Preprofessional Requirements.

Present: An overall grade-point average of 2.0 on a 4.0
quality point scale in all course work attempted, as com-
puted by the University Admissions Office.

Change to: An overall grade-point average of 2.5 on a 4.0
quality point scale in all course work attempted, as com—
puted by the University Admissions Office.

Present: At least one year's professional experience
(2000 hours) following acquisition of the associate degree.

Change to: Drop requirement.

Present: References from three allied health professionals.

Change to: References from three health professionals.

 

 Present: Highest level of registration, certification and/or
licensure appropriate to the allied health discipline.

Change to: Eligibility for professional practice as deter—
mined by the appropriate certifying, licensing or register—
ing body of that particular discipline.

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the proposed change in the
University grading system. Professor Rees, on behalf of the University Senate
Council, recommended approval of the proposal which was circulated to members of
the senate under date of March 3l, l983.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Extensive debate ensued
and finally a motion was moved and seconded to send the proposal back to the
committee.

Professor Canon said he knew the committee had looked very closely at the
proposal and sending it back without guidance the senate would likely get the
same thing back. He felt a vote should be made as to what the senate wanted.
After a straw vote, the Chair said the proposal would be sent back to the committee
for consideration of a complete +/-system rather than + only. Professor Harris
said he wanted the committee to find out in detail how other universities feel
about the pluses and minuses. Dean Ockerman suggested bringing all colleges
under the same system with the recommendation of the pluses and minuses.

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the
proposed statements on sexual harassment in University Senate Rules Section VII,
Faculty Code, and in Section VI, Student Academic Affairs. This was circulated
under date of March 3l, l983.

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. After lengthy discussion
on the wording of the paragraph, Professor Jewell moved the previous question.
The motion to include the statement in the University Senate Rules passed and
reads as follows:

 

Recommendations for Section VI, Student Academic Affairs
Section l.O Academic Rights of Students (underlined portions are new):

Amend l.3 to read:

Academic Evaluation

Students have the right to receive grades based only upon
fair and just evaluations of their performance in a course
as measured by the standards announced by their instructors
at the first or second class meeting. Grades determined by
anything other than their instructors' good faith judgment
based on such standards are improper. Among irrelevant con—
siderations are race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
political affiliation, or activities outside the classroom
that are unrelated to the course work. One form of sex
discrimination is sexual harassment. It is defined as un-
welcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other

 

 verbal or physical conduct or written communication of an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive sexual nature, when sub-
mission to such conduct is made either explicitly or im-
plicitly a term or condition of the student's status in a
course, program, or activity, as a basis for academic or

other decisions affecting such student, or substantially inter—
feres with a student's academic performance, or creates an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic
environment.

Section 2.0 The Academic Ombudsman:
Amend first paragraph 2.l.2 to read:
Jurisdiction

The authority of the Academic Ombudsman is restricted to
issues of an academic nature involving students on the one
hand and faculty or administrative staff on the other, ex-
plicitly governed by Sections IV, V, VI of the Rules of the
University Senate. However, the Ombudsman may refer issues
falling outside his/her jurisdiction to appropriate offices

charged with the responsibility for dealing with them such
as the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs or the Affirmative

Action Officer.

 

Amend 2.l.6 to read:

Liaison

The Academic Ombudsman shall maintain close liaison with the
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Affirmative Action
Officer and other such officials who have responsibility and
concern for the academic governance of students. However, he
shall not violate the rights of students or other parties in—
volved in cases brought to him through the disclosure of any
information comm .unicated to him in confidence.

 

Amend first two sentences 2.l.7 to read:

Records ang_Reports

The Academic Ombudsman shall retain a record of all cases ac—
acepted. In cases involving discrimination (including sexual
harassment), a summary of the case shall be sent to the
Affirmative action Officer.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation for Section VII, Faculty Code.

The addition of the following statement under 2.l, ”General
Relations.“

They shall respect the rights of all campus members to be

given fair treatment and to be judged on basis other than race,
religion, political belief, age, or sex. Sexual harassment is
considered by the University of Kentucky to be one form of

 

 sexual discrimination. (See Governing Regulation Part XII and
Administrative Regulations ————————— ) Unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical actions
of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

Submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a

a term or condition of an individual's employment, promotion,
or academic standing; as a basis for employment, promotion, or
academic decisions; or substantially interferes with an indivi—
dual's work or academic performance, or creates an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive academic environment.

RATIONALE: These statements are simply necessary follow—ups
of the Senate's adoption of a policy statement on sexual harrass-
ment.

Implementation Date: Immediately

The Chairman recognized Professor Douglas Rees for the presentation of the pro-
posed changed in the University Senate Rules, Section VI, 4.0 ff. This proposal
concerned the Disposition of Cases of Academic Offenses and was circulated to members
of the senate under date of April l, l983. The Chairman said two amendments had been
suggested by Dean Baer which stated that anytime the number of days were mentioned in
the appeals process, it meant school days. Under extenuating circumstances when the
dean is unable to respond, his designee may do so. The committee accepted those.

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Gesund moved an
amendment to change all mention of three (3) days to ten (l0) days. The motion was
seconded. Professor Pival told Professor Gesund the time limit was not when the
professor discovered the offense but was when the investigation was started. Senator
Yeh wanted to know if the charge involved sending a registered letter to the student
telling what the problem was. Professor Pival said that was one possibility and the
other was to face the student in a conference and make a charge. Professor Kao amended
the amendment to ”five (5) working days or seven (7) calendar days.“ Professors Pival
and Gesund accepted the amendment. The amendment passed.

Professor Neil questioned item 4.3. Professor Pival said that applied to a situa-
tion where the Dean of the College discovered the penalty rather than the instructor.
Professor Gesund had a problem with 4.l.c. He wanted to know what would happen if the
student's address was incorrect. Professor Pival pointed out that on page 6 there was
a statement that ”failure of a student to apprise the Ombudsman of a change of address
shall be cause for dismissal of the appeal.“ She said the idea of the certified letter
was to protect the instructor and the University.

The previous question was moved and passed. The proposal as amended passed
unanimously and reads as follows:

Background:

In May, I982, the Senate Council appointed an ad hoc Committee to study
the time frame for appeals procedures. In order to set an overall
time limit on an appeal, the committee found it necessary to make changes

in each step of the process. In summary, the recommendations follow
below:

 

 -11-

That an appeal should be taken through the complete process-—from
the date the student is confronted with the accusation to the hear—
ing of the University Appeals Board-—within a maximum of 60 days
(unless the student delays the process.)

Delete the step requiring investigation by the dean of the college in
which the academic offense occurs. This would place the responsi-
bility of investigation and the burden of proof on the instructor
and the department chair who are most closely involved with the in-
fraction. An exception would have to be made for this in cases that
include a non-academic violation, such as the theft of an exam,
since the Student Code specifies that the Dean of Students must work
with the dean in which the offense occurs. Deleting this level of
investigation would allow the student full investigation by the

Dean of the student's college, the Academic Ombudsman, and a hear-
ing by the University Appeals Board. An unnecessary and time-
consuming step could, without harm to the student, be eliminated.

The time frame the committee recommends for each step is as follows:

a. Submission of letter to student by instructor after initial
charge is made--7 calendar days

Investigation and recommendation by department chair—-7 days.

Recommendation and/or investigation by dean of students' college—-
7 days.

Student's appeal to Academic Ombudsman—-l5 days.

Investigation of Academic 0mbudsman--2l days, unless student
gives written permission to extend time for investigation.

f. Hearing of University Appeals Board—-2l days.

An addition to the rules requiring the appealing student to keep
a current address on file with the Academic Ombudsman; otherwise the
case will be subject to dismissal.

4.0 Disposition of Cases of Academic Offenses

4.l Responsibility of Instructor
c. recommend a more severe sanction than the instructor may

alone impose, by forwarding through the department chair—
man a written report of the offense to the dean of the stu-
dent's college. Notice of action taken under b. and/or c.
must be sent by the instructor, within 5 days after the
sccusation is made, to the student by certified mail with
copies to the department chairman and the dean of the stu-

dent's college.

Rationale: The teacher should, before accusing the student,
investigate the incident and gather evidence to support any
accusation of cheating or plagiarism. Therefore, five days
should be sufficient to write a letter and to construct a
file for the chairman and dean.

 

 

 4.2 Responsibility of the Department Chairman

 

After reviewing the report referred to in 4.l.c. and making
appropriate investigation, including the hearing and examination
'evidence presented by or in behalf of the student, the depart—
ment chairman, within 7 davs, forwards the file with a recommenda-
tion to the dean of the student's college. If, however, the
offense also involves a violation of Part 1, Code of Student
Conduct, the report shall be sent first to the dean of the col-
lege in which the offense occurred with a copy to the Dean of
Students and the dean of the student's college.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsibility: Dean of the College Where the Offense Occurred

 

Change last paragraph to:

Within 7 days after determining action to be taken under a.,
b., or c. notice must be sent by the dean to the student b