xt7nvx061g7z https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7nvx061g7z/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1979-01-22  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, January 22, 1979 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, January 22, 1979 1979 1979-01-22 2020 true xt7nvx061g7z section xt7nvx061g7z UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY ; ' ' ”j“-
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506 JAN 1 2 19/9

' L}I‘.'.l“.'iii»1>i!"'{ O: K EEHTUCK 'I' 3
UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL -
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING -m__..,_,__w.

January 10, 1979

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in special session on Monday,
January 22, 1979 at 3:00 p. m. in the Court Room of the Law
Building.

AGENDA:

1) Approval of the Minutes of December 11, 1978.
2) Comments: Joseph A. Bryant, Jr., Chairman
3) Action Items:

a) Proposal to establish a Master of Public Administration
Graduate Center. If approved the proposal for an MPA Center
will be forwarded to the Administration for appropriate action.
(Circulated under date of January 4, 1979.)

b) Proposal for reorganization of dental programs and Depart-
ments in the College of Dentistry and the College of Allied
Health Professions. If approved, the proposal will be for-
warded to the Administration for appropriate action. (Circulated
under date of. December 22, 1978.)

c) Proposed Honor Code, University of Kentucky College of
Dentistry. (Circulated under date of January 9, 1979.)

d) Proposal to change University Senate Rules, Section III,

2. 0, paragraph 5, and subsection ”3'". (Circulated under date
of January 9, 1979.)

Elbert W. Ocke rman
Sec retary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING: January 22, 1979

Chairman' 5 Remarks:

 

1)

2)

Withdrawal Policy and Interpretation (see attached).

Rules Committee interpretation of Senate Rules V, 5. 1.1b,
reaffirming an earlier interpretation, specifically that the
Appeals Board power is absolute and therefore has the
authority to award a W/P grade to any student.

Motion was made and passed by the Senate Council at its
meeting on December 18, 1978 to report this to the Senate.

Ombudsman Search Committee Established:

 

Frank Buck, Chairman

George Schwert

Catherine Morsink

Peggy O'Mera

Jackie Sweeney

Vincent Yeh (pronounced. Yay! )

Note: the last three are the student members.

Eebruary Senate Agenda: Tentative

 

a) Rules Change relative to receiving two degrees (Multiple
degree programs).

Program definition; proposed rules change.
Graduate Student classifications: proposed. rule change.
Honorary degree candidates.
Dentistry Admissions proposal.

) Ronda Connaway reporting on Eastern Kentucky program(?)
Ethics Code from Medical Center; currently in Student Affairs.
Re—staggering of Senate terms. Proposed rules change.

Composition of Undergraduate Council. Proposed rules
change.

 

 Page 2
Chairman's remarks: University Senate Meeting
January 22, 1979

Harwin Voss resigned as Chairman of Extended and Continuing
Education Programs Committee. Stephen Langston has agreed
to serve for Spring Semester, 1979.

Remind them that Senate Committee reports are due in April.

Remind them that Academic Area Advisory Committee nominations
and Senate Advisory Committee nominat ions are due the 24th.

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, JANUARY 22, 1979

The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, January 22, 1979,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Janis L. Bellack*, Kathy
Besing, Brack A. Bivins, A. Edward Blackhurst, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0. Blues, Peter P.
Bosomworth, Carolyn P. Brock*, Kevin Brown*, Sara Brumbaugh, S. K. Chan, Donald B. Clapp*,
D. Kay Clawson*, Kenneth M. Coleman, Clinton Collins, Ronda S. Connaway*, Samuel F. Conti*,
Paul Davis, David E. Denton*, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Joseph M. Dougherty, Phillip Duncan*,
Anthony Eardley, Bruce S. Eastwood*, W. W. Ecton*, Jane Emanuel*, Richard A. Etlin, Art
Gallaher*, John H. Garvey, Hans Gesund*, Abner Golden, S. Zafar Hasan*, Raymond R. Hornback,
Alfred S. L. Hu, Eugene Huff*, Charles W. Hultman*, David Hurst*, Donald W. Ivey*, Edward J.
Kifer*, Joseph Krislov, Gretchen LaGodna*, Paul Mandelstam*, Kenneth M. Martin, Betty W.
McClaskey, Marion E. McKenna*, Phillip W. Miller, Scott Moffitt, William G. Moody*, Judith
Mosher, Clayton Omvig*, Dennis E. Parsons, Bobby C. Pass*, Doyle E. Peaslee*, Alan R.
Perreiah*, Alex Pittman, Deborah E. Powell*, Kim Ratcliff, David H. Richardson*, Robert W.
Rudd*, Ramona Rush*, Rudolph Schrils*, Mike Schutte, Otis A. Singletary’< John T. Smith,

Tim Smith*, Wade C. Smith*, Terry Squires, Marjorie S. Stewart*, Joseph P. Straley*, Leonard
Tipton, M. Stanley Wall, Fred W. Zechman, Louise Zegeer*

The minutes of the regular meeting of December 11, 1978, were approved as circulated
with one addition. Professor Paul Sears moved that on page five (5) under "Staff”, second
paragraph the following should the added to read: ” The Multidisciplinary Center, comparable
to an interdisciplinary research institute, .” The motion was seconded and passed.

The Chairman made the following announcements. The first concerned the withdrawal rule
which was passed on December 12, 1977. He said he was circulating a memorandum to faculty
members concerning what the Senate Council had agreed upon. The Council formulated what it
believed was the interpretation and submitted it to the Rules Committee that made a recom—
mendation and the Council accepted it. The Chairman read the following recommendation:

"Any student who misses the first two class periods of a course without notifying the de—
partment of his intention may be reported to the Dean who shall drop the student from the
course. Any student may withdraw from any class before the midpoint of the term. In order
to withdraw the student must submit a completed withdrawal form to his or her Dean, and the
Dean shall report the withdrawal to the Registrar. Any student withdrawing during the first
third of the course shall be removed from the class roll and no grade or record shall appear
on the student's transcript. Any student withdrawing after the first third of the course
but before midterm shall receive the grade of ”W". A student may withdraw from a class
during the last half only upon approval of petition. Four possible reasons were cited for
withdrawing but were not limited to those reasons. Such petition should be recommended by
the student's advisor and instructor and must be approved by the dean of the student's
college. The instructor must assign an appropriate grade. The Rules Committee recommends
that the Dean, advisor, and instructor all agree that a student who withdraws from a course
in the latter half of the term that the reason must be one involving circumstances which

the student has little or no control. The appropriate grade will be "W" or "E" and will

be determined solely by the instructor." The student should be advised, moreover, that
unless he is passing at the time of withdrawal no purpose will be served in withdrawing.

*Absence explained

 

 The second item concerned the Ombudsman Search Committee, which has been established and
is composed of Frank Buck, Chairman, George Schwert, Catherine Morsink, and three students:
Peggy O'Mera, Jackie Sweeney and Vincent Gay. Any suggestions on nominations for Ombudsman
should be given to them.

The Chairman reminded the Senators that the next meeting of the Senate will be
February 12. Some of the items that may appear on the agenda are rule changes relative
to multiple degree programs; the question of program definition (whether a certain rule
applies to graduate programs as well as undergraduate programs); the question of graduate
student classification; announcement of Honorary Degrees; a proposal to modify Dentistry
admissions; a proposal to restagger the Senate terms; and a proposal to modify the compo—
sition of the Undergraduate Council.

The Chairman reported that Harwin Voss has resigned as Chairman of the Extended and
Continuing Education Program Committee and that Stephen Langston has agreed to serve for
the Spring Semester 1979.

The Senators were reminded that the Committee Chairmen reports are due in April.
Academic Area Advisory Committee nominations and Senate Advisory Committee nominations are
due on January 24.

The Chairman then recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Coun—
cil. Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of
a proposal to establish a Public Administration Graduate Center. This proposal had been
circulated to members of the University Senate under the date of January 4, 1979. Professor
Reedy pointed out that at the request of the original proposer he had changed the title to
Public Administration Graduate Center. Following the motion the Chairman called attention
to the fact that if approved the proposal would be forwarded to the administration for
appropriate action. Professor Hackbart and Dean Royster were asked to answer any questions
and the floor was opened for discussion.

Professor Canon said that he noticed on the second page under "Principal Function"
the Center function would be fulfilled by utilizing faculty from various departments who
would hold joint appointments with the Center. He asked what the ratio would be. Dean
Royster responded that when the idea of a Graduate Center was approved by the Senate it was
part of the organization of the Center that faculty would hold joint appointments. The
individuals in the MPA program are requesting to follow that same organization. The ratio
Would depend upon the program and the funding. He added that it would be difficult to say
exactly what the ratio would be.

Professor Harris suggested an editorial change from ”MPA Graduate Center” to Graduate
Center for Public Administration. Dean Royster accepted the change.

Professor Baer moved an amendment, which Dean Royster accepted, to delete the second
and third sentences and the first word of the fourth sentence on page three under Advisory
Council and to add:

"There shall be an Advisory Committee of at least six (6) members in
the Graduate Center for Public Administration appointed by the Dean

of the Graduate School. The members shall be selected from the Deans
of the Colleges, Chairpersons of the Departments who are substantially
involved in the teaching of courses in the Graduate Center for Public
Administration. In addition, an external advisory committee ..... "

The motion to amend was seconded.

 

 . —3—

Professor Baer said that when one was working with several departments and colleges
on an interdisciplinary program the staff needed an oral means of communication between the
faculty and the administrator who was chairing the faculty.

The previous question was moved and passed. The motion to amend the prOposal then
passed. There was no further discussion on the main motion, and the previous question was
moved and passed. The original proposal as amended passed. It reads as follows:

Background:

Since 1946, the University of Kentucky has been a participant
in the Southern Regional Training Program, which has proved to be
a successful training ground for state and local government public
administrators. In answer to an increased demand for such profes—
sionally trained administrators, the University developed an ex—
panded program leading to the degree of Master of Public Administra—
tion (MPA). This program was approved by the Kentucky Council on
Higher Education in July of 1975 and completed its first year of
operation in May of 1977. The current directors of that program,
Professors Merlin Hackbart and Phillip Roeder, and Dean Wimberly
Royster of the Graduate School now recommend that the program be
given a more formal structure and designate it a Graduate Center.
They feel that such a move will produce at least three beneficial
results.

1) The University will better serve the manifest demands of stu—
dents in the government community for a professional degree
in Public Administration;

The faculty now associated with the MPA program will feel a
stronger sense of identification with that program and will
have a better opportunity for gaining recognition for their
contributions to it; and,

The unit will have a better chance of meeting the standards and
receiving the approval of the national association of Schools
of Public Affairs and Administration.

Their proposal has already received approval of the graduate faculty
and the University Senate Committee on Academic Organization and
Structure, and the Senate Council now forwards it to the Senate as

a whole with a recommendation for approval.

Proposal

MPA Program Description:

 

The objective of the program leading to the Master of Public
Administration (MPA) degree is to enable persons seeking careers in
public agencies to acquire a multidisciplinary, professional educa—
tion appropriate to their goals. To attain this objective, a
student in the program is required to complete an administrative
core consisting of 24 semester hours, and an area of concentration
comprising 21 semester hours (including a 6—hour internship), which
provide a total of 45 hours of MPA training.

 

 -4-

Because of the interdisciplinary nature of administration in
the public sector, the Master of Public Administration degree is
offered by the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky with
faculty members drawn from the College of Business and Economics,
College of Medicine, College of Social Professions, Department of
Higher Education, and Department of Political Science. The program
is administered by a Director and Associate Director of Graduate
Studies with the assistance of the Area Coordinators who advise
students in the various specializations.

Principal Function of Graduate Center:

 

The primary function of the Graduate Center for Public Admin—
istration then is to provide an administrative structure for the
offering of the Public Administration Program. This function is
consistent with the University of Kentucky Graduate Center concept.
This Center function will be fulfilled by utilizing faculty from
various departments who will hold joint appointments with the
- Center and professors with principal appointments in the Center
for Public Administration. The faculty will teach courses in a
required core plus specialized area courses within the public
administration curriculum. As such, the Center will function in
a manner similar to a University academic department. In essence,
then, the academic preparation for the MPA degree constitutes the
principal function of the Graduate Center for Public Administration.

Other functions of the Center will mirror those of other
academic units/departments of the University (e.g., research and
service). Public administration professionals and the National
Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration have
recognized that professional public administration education can
be significantly enhanced when research and service activities are
part of ongoing public administration departments. This has led to
the establishment of ”Schools of Public Administratiod'at many major
Universities. Therefore, the Center and its faculty and staff will
be expected to involve themselves in public administration/public
policy research and service endeavors which complement the principal
educational function of the Center.

Advisory Council:

The Graduate Center for Public Administration faculty will
monitor its academic programs and complementary research and service
activities. There shall be an Advisory Committee of at least six (6)
members in the Graduate Center for Public Administration appointed
by the Dean of the Graduate School. The members shall be selected
from the Deans of the Colleges, Chairpersons of the Departments who
are substantially involved in the teaching of courses in the Graduate
Center for Public Administration. In addition, an external advisory
committee made up of distinguished public administration practitioners
has been established. It was felt that the Master of Public Adminis—
tration faculty‘s efforts to achieve excellence in public service
education would benefit from the advice and counsel of practicing
professionals.

 

 The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, moved approval of the pro-~
posal for reorganization of dental programs and Departments in the College of Dentistry
and the College of Allied Health Professions. This proposal had been circulated to mem—
bers of the University Senate under date of December 22, 1978. The Chairman suggested
a grammatical change on page two that the period after office be changed to a comma
followed by a small ”a”. He added that the rationale was presented clearly in the three
objectives that the Colleges hoped to achieve. The floor was opened for questions and
discussion. There being no discussion, the previous question was moved and passed. The
proposal as presented passed and reads as follows:

Background:

For some time now Deans Merrill Packer of the College of
Dentistry and Joseph Hamburg of the College of Allied Health have
been concerned about a serious overlapping of function in their
respective departments of Community Dentistry and Dental Hygiene.
After careful study for a period of over two years they came to
the conclusion that the best solution to the problem would be to
create an administrative interdepartmental office which would have
three objectives:

1) To coordinate training activities related to dental
auxilliaries, and,

2) To facilitate establishment of the multidisciplinary
approach to a new primary care program, and

3) To facilitate the development and conduct of major
multidisciplinary research projects.

Under the proposal the departments in the two Colleges would retain
their identity and integrity, but both would participate in coordi—
nated auxilliary educational and training programs. In general
this newly created activity would have a status analogous to that
of interdepartmental programs in other parts of the University,
notably the College of Arts and Sciences. One unique advantage

of the proposed activity in the two colleges would be the possi-
bility of pooling resources. Currently there are four (4) major
grants distributed between the two units which are being used
toward similar goals. In a coordinated program resources could be
joined, evaluated and standardized. The authority for administra—
tive action in the proposed unit would be vested in a program
director who would meet weekly with program and grant directors
from the two departments to oversee, evaluate, and direct the
coordinated operations. The details of the proposal are as follows:

1) That an interdepartmental office for dental auxilliary
training be created, using personnel and financial re—
sources from both the Department of Community Dentistry
of the College of Dentistry and the Department of Dental
Hygiene from the College of Allied Health Professions.
Finances would include allocations from the current bud—
gets of these two units as well as from resources desig—
nated for training from existing grants now being
administered by the two. Such an office will permit the

 

 -6—

creation of a nucleus of faculty and staff from both units
to handle short-term auxilliary training and will permit
standardization of training methods and the development of
evaluation systems to strengthen the research aspects of
such training. A prior letter of agreement specifying the
state resources contributed by each college will be devel—
oped before the program is implemented in order to assure
fair reallocation of the finances should the office be
deactivated in future years. i

That the existing Department of Dental Hygiene be redi—
rected to increase emphasis on the education of primary
care auxilliaries at all levels, including field—based

educational systems, experimental educational programs,
and post—certificate degree programs.

That the Department of Community Dentistry initiate a
general practice residency program and an expanded dental
program in family practice.

That various transfers of funds be effected in order to
support the new interdepartmental office for Dental
Auxilliary training, to support a revised department of
Dental Hygiene to permit the transfer of one faculty mem-
ber from the College of Allied Health Professions to the
Department of Community Dentistry (such faculty member

to function in the new interdepartmental office as a
representative of the Department of Community Dentistry
to the Director of that office), and finally, to support
individualized requests relating to the developmental
costs for establishing the new general practice residency
program and the expanded dental program in family practice.

That the budget for the interdepartmental office he estab-
lished in the College of Dentistry in the Department of
Community Dentistry.

That the budget of the revised Department of Dental Hygiene
remain in the College of Allied Health.

That promotion and tenure issues as well as routine
personnel issues continue to be handled by the two cooper—
ating departments.

That a person be appointed to assume the role of adminis—
trative coordinator related to program relationship be-
tween the revised department of Dental Hygiene and the
reorganized department of Community Dentistry.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed Honor Code, College of Dentistry. This proposal had been circulated to members
of the University Senate under date of January 9, 1979.

The Chairman recognized Professor Todd for an editorial change. Professor Todd called
the Senators' attention to Page eight, number five which he recommended be amended to read:

 

 "...a unanimous vote (at least eight (8) voting members) of the

Student Honor Code Committee...”

The Chair ruled that this would be considered an editorial change and part of the motion
as proposed. The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Hanau suggested using the
wording on page eight, Option one be placed in Option two on page six, and this was accepted
as an editorial change.

Professor Weil said that one of the options,if a student observed another student break—
ing the honor code,was to ask him to stop. He asked if it would have to be reported if the
first student stopped the violation. The Chairman said that he assumed the Honor Code im-
plied a student would report the infraction if he couldn't persuade someone not to cheat.
Professor Bridges responded that this provision in the code was not mandatory.

The Chair called attention to the statement of page two and page four that both stu—
dents and faculty were obligated to take cognizance of the code and asked whether in the
opinion of the College of Dentistry, that did not adequately spell out the obligation for
all concerned. Professor Bridges called attention to the sentence on page four that reads:
”Failure to use the options available to deal with infractions or suspected infractions of
the Honor Code is also an infraction of the Honor Code." Dean Stephenson pointed out that
obligation to report infractions still had not been spelled out; and Professor Lienhard
expressing what he considered to be the general weakness of the Code, observed that it
would be very hard to get a conviction. Professor Weil said that in view of the questions
raised on the floor perhaps the Honor Code should be sent back to committee, but he made
no motion to that.

Professor Bridges said that the intent of the document was that the Code belonged to
the students; it had come into being as a result of an Honor Code Committee and Student
Honor Code Committee. He expressed the opinion that any student, observing someone cheat-

ing a second time, would be sufficiently infuriated to use one of the other three (3)
options. In this connection Dean Packer observed that he saw no problem with adding the
words "repeated abuse" in order to cover the situation under discussion and added that in
any case he would like to see the proposed Honor Code passed.

Professor Thrailkill asked why any student after signing an Honor Code statement in
a professional school should be entitled to "one free cheat." Dean Packer observed that
a "free cheat" was not what the College of Dentistry had in mind.

The Chairman suggested that perhaps some of the difficulty might be avoided if some—
one proposed a modification to the statement on page 6, A.l, to the effect that a student
if he chose option 1 and found the cheating continuing, would thereafter be obligated to
proceed with either Option II or III. Dean Packer replied that the College would be
supportive of such an amendment. Gene Tichenor, Student Government President, said that
he saw no need for such an editorial change; that in most cases a student would report
a recurrence of cheating but that if he did not report the cheating no one could prove
that he had seen it in the first place. The Chairman at this point noted that no editorial
change had been proposed and apologized for having confused the discussion with something
meant only to clarify. Professor Adelstein spoke in favor of the students' position that
the report stand as presented and Professor Jaros noted that it was probably not the Senate's
responsibility to repudiate any reasonable document that will apply only to the unit pro—
posing it. After a brief period of discussion, the previous question was called, seconded
and passed. The original motion as amended editorially and with the substitution of
Option I on page eight (8) for Option II on page six (6) passed. It reads as follows:

 

 Background:

The proposed Dentistry Honor Code was submitted to the Senate

Council in the Spring, 1978, which referred it to the Student Affairs
Committee for review. On December 1 that committee, having recom—
mended several minor changes (subsequently incorporated), returned

it with a recommendation for approval.

The Council has made further minor editorial changes and now for-
wards the proposal to the Senate, again with a recommendation for
approval.

kick

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY

HONOR CODE
Introduction:

The health profession of dentistry is predicated on the faith
and trust of the people it serves. The profession must be com-
prised of individuals with a well-developed sense of ethics and
self—discipline who are careful not to violate this faith and
trust. The dentist must be acutely aware of his moral obligations.
A dentist may be scientifically knowledgeable, technically capable,
and socially sensitive, but lacking integrity, he or she betrays
patients and dishonors colleagues. It is recognized that an
individual must be responsible for his own behavior; but the
responsibility for nurturing of the honesty and integrity requisite
to becoming a member of the health professions is shared by the
student, faculty and Dean of the University of Kentucky College
of Dentistry. Therefore, it is imperative that the University of
Kentucky College of Dentistry be alert to recognize, nurture and
sustain honesty and integrity. One way this can be achieved is by
student participation in the development and operation of a system
of self—discipline in academic matters. It is for this reason that
the Honor Code was designed, by a joint effort of students and
faculty of the College of Dentistry, to provide a system by which
all matters pertaining to academic infractions may be managed.

Non-academic matters are topics under the jurisdiction of the
Code of Student Conduct (see Student Rights and Responsibilities,
Part I, University of Kentucky, August 1978).

 

The operation of the Honor Code system is based upon the concept
that the best way for an individual to become responsible is to give
him the responsibility for his own conduct.

Scope of the Honor Code System

A. General

All students officially enrolled in any didactic, laboratory,
or clinical courses offered as part of the curriculum by the College
of Dentistry are bound by the Honor Code. The Honor Code applies

 

 -9-

to all academic activities of the College of Dentistry (all examina-
tions, all clinical and laboratory procedures, and all independent
or extramural curricular activities). The Honor Code prevails for
all examinations, technical procedures, or independent projects
which are carried out in scheduled classes, in the Testing Center,
elsewhere in the Medical Center, or in extramural locations.

Rendering advice to a fellow student (other than during an
examination) in clinical and laboratory work for purposes of in—
struction is not construed as an infraction of the code. However,
a student may BEE do any of the work or treatment which is claimed
or exhibited to be self-efforts by another student.

Student conduct involving tardiness, absence from class, social
behavior, personal grooming, or cleanliness of laboratory work
spaces are not within the scope of the Honor Code.

Each student is expected to abide by the Honor Code. 'Within
one month of registration all entering students will sign a pledge
card acknowledging that they have read the Honor Code and under—
stand it. After all students have signed the cards, the entering
class will elect representatives to the Student Honor Code Committee.

B. Specific

Infractions of the Honor Code are limited to cheating and
plagiarism as described in Student Rights and Responsibilities,
Part II, Section 3.0, Selected Rules of the University Senate
Governing Academic Relationships. For clarity, those applicable
portions are included herein:

"3.0 Academic Offenses and Procedures
3.1 Plagiarism

All academic work, written or otherwise, submitted by a student
to his instructor or other academic supervisor, is expected to
be the result of his own thought, research, or self—expression.
In any case in which a student feels unsure about a question of
plagiarism involving his work, he is obliged to consult his
instructor on the matter before submitting it.

When a student submits work purporting to be his own, but which
in any way borrows ideas, organization, wording or anything
else from another source without appropriate acknowledgment

of the fact, the student is guilty of plagiarism.

Plagiarism includes reproducing someone else's work, whether
it be published article, chapter of a book, a paper from a
friend or some file, or whatever. Plagiarism also includes
the practice of employing or allowing another person to alter
or revise the work which a student submits as his own, who-
ever that other person may be. Students may discuss assign—
ments among themselves or with an instructor or tutor, but
when the actual work is done, it must be done by the student,
and the student alone.

 

 When a student's assignment involves research in outside
sources or information, he must carefully acknowledge exactly
what, where and how he has employed them. If he uses the
words of someone else, he must put quotation marks around the
passage in question and add an appropriate indication of its
origin. Making simple changes while leaving the organization,
content and phraseology intact is plagiaristic. However,
nothing in these Rules shall apply to those ideas which are
so generally and freely circulated as to be a part of the
public domain.

Cheating

Cheating is defined by its general usage. It includes, but
is not limited to, the wrongfully giving, taking, or pre-
senting any information or material by a student with the
intent of aiding himself or another in any academic work
which is considered in any way in the determination of the
final grade. Any question of definition shall be referred
to the University Appeals Board."

That defi