xt7r7s7htq2t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7r7s7htq2t/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1985-11-11  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, November 11, 1985 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 11, 1985 1985 1985-11-11 2020 true xt7r7s7htq2t section xt7r7s7htq2t LNMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL

10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 31 October 1985

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

November 11, 1985, at 3:05 p.m. in ROOM 116 of the THOMAS HUNT MORGAN
BUILDING.

AGENDA:
Minutes of 9 September 1985 and 14 October 1985.
Resolutions.
Chairman's Remarks.
ACTION ITEMS:

a. Proposal to amend Senate Rule I, 3.2.3 to limit
membership on the Graduate Council to no more than one
person from any department and accompanying proposals to
alter certain terms in future Graduate Council elections
to obtain a more even turnover of membership.
(Circulated under date of 31 October 1985.)

Proposal to amend Senate Rules V, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 to add
illness of the student and serious illness or death in
the student's immediate family as excused absences.
(Circulated under date of 1 November 1985.)

Proposal to amend Senate Rule V, 2.4.2 to include major
religious holidays as an excused absence. (Circulated
under date of 1 November 1985.)

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY:

a. Report and recommendations of the ad hog General
Education Committee (L. Swift, Chairman) for revision of
the General Studies curriculum with modifications
approved by the Senate Council. (Circulated under date
of 4 November 1985.)

Randall Dahl
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER 11, 1985

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:05 p.m., Monday, September
ll, l985, in room ll6 of the Thomas Hunt Morgan Building.

Bradley C. Canon, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Frank Allana, Kathlene Ashcraft, Charles E. Barnhart, Susan
M. Belmore, Brian Bergman*, Raymond F. Betts, Dibaker Bhattacharyya, Peter P.
Bosomworth, Daniel J. Breazeale, Charles N. Byers*, John Cain, Kenneth w. Davis*,
Marcus Dillon, Richard C. Domek*, Robert Lewis Donohew*, Herbert N. Drennen,
Anthony Eardley, Kimberly Ellis, Stanley Feldman, Richard N. Furst, Art Gallaher,
Jr.*, Lester Goldstein*, Jesse G. Harris*, S. Zafar Hasan, Leonard E. Heller,
Raymond R. Hornback, Gregg Hovious, John J. Just*, Jay T. Kearney*, James R.
Lang*, Robert G. Lawson, Arthur Leiber*, Edgar D. Maddox*, Kenneth E. Marino*,
Sally S. Mattingly*, Richard McDougall*, John Menkhaus*, Peggy Meszaros*, H.
Brinton Milward, Mark Moore, Michael T. Nietzel*, Robert C. Noble*, Merrill w.
Packer, Richard Perkins, Robin D. Powell, Peter Purdue, E. Douglas Rees, Gerald A.
Rosenthal, Wimberly C. Royster, Charles Sachatello, Edgar L. Sagan, Timothy
Sineath*, Otis A. Singletary*, Louis Straub, Kenneth R. Thompson, Marc J. Wallace,
James H. Wells, Charles Wethington, Paul A. Willis, Constance P. Wilson, Peter
Ninograd*, Judy Wiza*

The Minutes of the meetings of September 9, l985, and October 14, 1985, were
approved as circulated.

Dr. Canon made the following announcements:

“Most of the Senate Council activity these days in-
cludes considering the proposal for the revision of the
General Studies Program, as you know. On Wednesday we will
begin consideration of the report from the Committee on
Cheating and Plagiarism, a committee appointed by last
year's Ombudsman, Chuck Ellinger. This will probably be
ready for Senate action in the early Spring. The Senate
Council is also considering a proposal from the Adminis-
tration to establish a Multidisciplinary Center for Bio-
medical Engineering. If this is approved by the Council, it
will probably be ready for action at the first meeting in
the Spring.

I have an announcement relating to the Senate Council
Election. Two members of the Senate have been elected to
the Council: Robert Hemenway of Arts and Sciences, and
specifically the English Department, and William Lyons of
Arts and Sciences, specifically the Political Science
Department. Those are the only two that received a majority
of the votes which is required for election to the Senate
Council. There will be a runoff between three other can—
didates: Emmett Costich of the College of Dentistry; Loys
Mather, College of Agriculture; and Madhira D. Ram, College

PLEASE NOTE: FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE FACULTY, THE ENTIRE SWIFT COMMITTEE
REPORT AND PROPOSED SENATE COUNCIL MODIFICATIONS ARE ATTACHED AT THE END OF THESE

 

*Absence explained

 

 of Medicine. The last two tied in the number of votes they
received and that is the reason we have three candidates
rather than two in the running. The ballots will be dis-
tributed shortly and you will probably be asked to return
them by the day before Thanksgiving.

The Chairman of the Senate Council is required by the
Senate Rules to appoint a committee to search for an 0m~
budsman for the following year. Actually the Chairman does
not appoint the committee, it is his job to announce the
formation of that committee. The committee chair is James
Kemp of the College of Agriculture who was appointed by
President Singletary. There are two student members, Carla
Crum and Mark Kosper, who were appointed by SGA President
John Cain. The last member is Donald Hochstrasser of the
College of Allied Health who is appointed by the Senate
Council. Soon they will be circulating a call for nominees
for the 1986-87 ombudsman.

I am informed that the initial Board of Trustees Ballot
will go out shortly. Faculty representative James Kemp's
term expires on June 30, 1986, and the ballot is for that
position.

Finally the good news. The Senate holds an annual
party on the second Tuesday of December. The party will be
Tuesday, December l0 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the Alumni
House at the corner of Rose and Euclid. It is free and the
only pay you will get for serving in the Senate, unless you
are able somehow to sell your vote in the Senate which I
don't think is worth very much. I will invite you now, and
I will invite you again at the December meeting and you will
all get a flyer. Senators and spouses or a friend are
invited to the party."

The Chairman recognized Professor Wilbur Frye, the Chair—elect of the Senate
Council. Professor Frye moved to waive the ten-day circulation rule for consid—
eration of the agenda item. There was no objection. On behalf of the Senate
Council, Professor Frye moved the proposal to amend Senate Rule I, 3.2.3 to limit
membership on the Graduate Council to no more than one person from any department
and accompanying proposals to alter certain terms in future Graduate Council elec-
tions to obtain a more even turnover of membership. This proposal was circulated
to members of the senate under date of October 3l, 1985.

The Chair pointed out that the motion from the Senate Council needed no
second. Professor Dan Reedy, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, was available
to answer any questions. The floor was opened for questions and discussion.
Professor Rea wanted to know if the rule would keep two people from the same de—
partment being simultaneously elected. He felt the rule was to limit the Council
to one member from each department. Chairman Canon said that was the intent.
Professor Rea said that two might be elected. The Chair's response was that the
staggering of the elections would insure there would be only one election in a
college. There was no further discussion and the motion, which passed
unanimously, reads as follows:

 

 Rule Change: [proposed amendment is underlined]

I. 3.2.3 Election—-Only full members of the Graduate
Faculty shall be eligible to serve on the Graduate Council
and to vote in the Graduate Council election. Graduate
Faculty members with administrative title above that of
department chairmen shall not be eligible. In addition,
members of the Graduate Faculty from departments which have
representatives with unexpired terms on the Graduate Council

 

 

shall not be eligible.

 

Proposal 1

In the l987 Graduate Council election the terms of the two
members from the College of Education expire. The person
elected from that College with the highest number of votes
shall serve for a three—year term and the other person
elected shall serve for a two-year term.

Proposal 2

‘ In the 1988 Graduate Council election, the terms of six
members will expire. The term of the member elected to
represent the Colleges of Allied Health, Dentistry and
Nursing shall be for two years.

Background and Rationale:

There are certain years in which the turnover of the Graduate
Council membership is substantial. In some years, including the
two appointed members, there will be eight new members and in
other years, including the appointed members, there will be six
new members. The expiration of the terms of eight members re—
quires that at least one half of the Graduate Council will be
new. In addition, Council members who go on leave have to be
replaced and under these circumstances more than one half of the
Council would be new.

 

Another problem is that two Graduate Council representatives
sometimes come from the same department. Currently, the College
of Education representatives are from the same department and,
also, are elected in the same year. Currently, there is no rule
which states that two members of the same department may not
represent their College on the Graduate Council.

The Graduate Council considered these two issues and proposed the
following:

In the l987 election two members of the College of Education's
terms expire. Replace one of them for a two—year term and the
other for a three-year term. In the l988 election, the terms of
six members of the Graduate Council will expire: those members
representing Business and Economics; Engineering; Allied Health,
Nursing and Dentistry; and Fine Arts and Communications. In

 

 order to provide for even distribution, set the term of office
for one of these representatives for two years. This will pro—
vide for the expiration of the terms of five elected representa—
tives on the Council in 1989, four in 1990, and five in l99l—-all
of which will make for a more even distribution of terms of mem—
bership on the Graduate Council.

The Graduate Council suggests that the representative from Allied
Health, Nursing and Dentistry be elected for two years in 1988.
Since this group represents more colleges, it would allow the
possibility of wider representation of the colleges.

In establishing the Graduate Council it was apparently the objec-
tive to provide as broad representation as possible from the
colleges within the University and within colleges where there
are two or more representatives on the Council. Amending the
Senate Rules as indicated would further this objective.

The proposed amendment to the Senate Rule I., 3.2.3 and proposals
l and 2 outlined herein have been reviewed and endorsed by the
Senate Council.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1986.

The Chair again recognized Professor Wilbur Frye. On behalf of the Senate
Council, Professor Frye moved to waive the ten—day circulation rule for the agenda
item. There was no objection. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Frye
moved the proposal to amend Senate Rules V., 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 and add illness of
the student and serious illness or death in the student's immediate family as
excused absences. The chair said the Senate Council had written into the revision
all of the suggestions made at the October Senate Meeting when the absence policy
was first proposed except for the suggestion relating to the religious holiday
which has been put on the agenda as a separate item. This proposal was circulated
to members of the Senate under date of November l, 1985. The floor was opened for
discussion.

Professor Atwood had a problem with the policy and did not think it was
possible to specify all the valid reasons a student might miss class. He said
there were a number of students who commuted and could have car trouble. He felt
that any policy that tried to specify what was excused and what was not would be
unfair. He thought with the proposal a student could miss a large number of
classes and the only option an instructor would have would be to counsel the
students about the advisability of an ”I“ or “W" grade. He felt the amendment
made a bad situation worse. Professor Rea's concern was similar, and he also
noted that a student was entitled to withdraw from a course only during the first
half of the semester. Chairman Canon noted that a student could withdraw later
.with the permission of his dean.

Professor Eakin wanted to know if the proposal intended to define excused
absences. The Chair responded that the proposal set forth minimal general
definitions. Instructors were free to accept additional reasons as excused
absences, but they could not refuse to accept the ones listed in the proposal.

 

 Professor Wood wanted clarification of the fifth sentence of 2.4.2.3 which
states "The instructor shall, if feasible, give the student. . ." She wanted to
know ”if feasible" gave the student the opportunity to make up the work or the
semester in which the work was to be completed. Dr. Canon's understanding was
that "if feasible" referred to the semester. Professor Wood moved to change ”if
feasible" to the end of the sentence. The amendment was seconded. Professor
Gesund suggested that "if feasible" should be changed in both sentences for the
exams and work. The amendments were adopted, and the words "if feasible” were

shifted.

In further discussion Professor Lyons pointed out that at the last meeting of
the Senate an amendment passed whereby makeup exams had to be given. The Chair
said that was correct assuming the student wanted the exam. Professor Lyons
wanted to know if any student organization could sponsor a trip and those students
be considered legally absent. The Chair said there was no intent to change the
substance of that rule. By organization the Senate Council means a band, athletic
team, debate team, or University sponsored organizations. Professor Gesund de-
fended that by saying that approval for trips had to be approved by the deans of
colleges. Professor Lyons said in the new rule any department could sponsor a
trip. He felt judgment should be made at a higher level than the academic unit,
particularly when it put a burden on faculty for makeup exams.

Student Senator Dennis said the student might have a misunderstanding as to
what he/she would consider ”appropriate University personnel." Chairman Canon
said like all Senate Rules misunderstandings could go to the Ombudsman and even-
tually to the Rules Committee. The Ombudsman would continue to mediate for the
student.

The adoption of the revised absence policy as amended passed on a voice vote
and reads as follows:

Proposal:

2.4.1. Attendance and Completion of Assignments
For each course in which the student is enrolled, the
student shall be expected to carry out all required
work including laboratories and studios, and to take
all examinations at the class period designed by the
instructor.

 

Each instructor shall determine his/her policy re-
garding completion of assigned work, attendance in
class, absences at announced or unannounced exami—
nations, and excused absences in excess of one-tenth
of class contact hours (see Rule V-2.4.2 below). This
policy shall be presented in writing to each class at
its first or second meeting. Students' failure to
complete assignments, attend class, or be present for
examinations in accordance with the announced policies
may result in appropriate reductions in grade as de—
,termined by the instructor except in the case of
excused absences.

 

 2.4.2 Excused Absences:
The following are defined as excused absences:

l.

Illness of the student or serious illness of a
member of the student's immediate family. The
instructor shall have the right to request
appropriate verification.

The death of a member of the student's immediate
family. The instructor shall have the right to
request appropriate verification.

Trips for members of student organizations spon—
sored by an academic unit, trips for University
classes, and trips for participation in inter-
collegiate athletic events. Nhen feasible, the
student must notify the instructor prior to the
occurrence of such absences, but in no case shall
such notification occur more than one week after
the absence. Instructors may request formal not-
ification from appropriate university personnel
to document the student's participation in such
trips.

Students missing work due to an excused absence
bear the responsibility of informing the instruc-
tor about their excused absence within one week
following the period of the excused absence
(except where prior notification is required),
and of making up the missed work. The instructor
shall give the student an opportunity to make up
the work missed during the semester in which the
absence occurred, if feasible. The student shall
be given the opportunity to make up exams missed
due to an excused absence during the semester in
which the absence occurred, if feasible. In
those instances where the nature of the course is
such that classroom participation by the student
is essential for evaluation, the instructor
shall, if feasible, give the student an oppor—
tunity to make up the work missed during the
semester in which the absence occurred.

If, in the opinion of the instructor, excused
absences in excess of one—tenth of the class
contact hours or the timing of excused absences
prevents the student from satisfactorily com-
pleting work for the course, the instructor shall
counsel the student about the options of an I
grade or withdrawal from the course for that
semester.

 

 Background and Rationale:

 

For many years, the only excused absence recognized by the
Senate Rules was one taken for a University—related trip. There
is no rule recognizing a student's illness or the illness or
death of a member of a student's immediate family as an excused
absence. Many instructors have allowed students to make up work
in illness or death situations, but some have not. The latter
situation has caused a lot of problems and students have fre-
quently complained to Chairpersons, deans, the ombudsman, etc.
However, because no rule lists illness and death as excused
absences, chairs, deans, ombudsmen, etc. have no authority to
compel instructors to allow students to make up missed work.

During the 1982-83 academic year, a University Senate ad hog
Committee chaired by Mike Brooks worked for six months
(consulting with former Ombudsmen, Student Affairs Officers, the
Athletics Department, etc.) to draft a proposed revision of the
rule to remedy this problem. At the April, 1983, Senate meet—
ing, the Senate voted to return the proposal to the Committee,

' largely because some Senate members felt that the revision would
deprive instructors of the ability to establish some policy
linking minimal attendance and grades. The ad hoc Committee
never reconvened following the Senate action7_ The problems,
however, have not gone away.

In the summer, 1985, the Senate Council reviewed the background
materials and appointed an internal ad hoc Committee whose
charge was to propose revisions to aTTeVTate the existing prob—
lems, taking into account the objections raised at the April,
1983, Senate meeting. That committee produced the revision
considered by the Senate in October, 1985. The current proposal
reflects the Senate suggestions made in October, with the excep—
tion of religious holidays, which will be considered as a sepa—
rate amendment. Essentially it defines a student's illness and
illness or death in the student's immediate family as excused
absences, with the proviso that a student who accumulates ex-
cused absences in excess of one—tenth of the class contact hours
shall be counseled about the incomplete and withdrawal grade
Options if the instructor believes that the absences preclude
the student from completing the course in a satisfactory manner
by the semester's end. The Senate Council recommends approval.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1986.

The next item on the agenda was the proposal that major religious holidays be
added as a fourth definition of excused absences. The proposal was circulated
under date of November 1, 1985. As the Senate Council had neither approved nor
disapproved the proposal, it needed a motion to adopt from the floor. Professor
Gesund so moved and the motion was seconded. The Chair recognized Professor
Germain, who thanked the Chair and the Senate Council for giving very good cooper—
ation and sense of good faith in the endeavor of the proposal in which the UK
Faculty Association on Jewish Affairs is comfortable with but does not necessarily
have every detail that is necessary. He felt the rule and rationale spoke for
itself.

 

 The Chair read the following statement for Professor Goldstein in his absence:

”I ask that the proposal to extend the list of excused absences
be turned aside. There are many reasons to do so, but I'll
mention just one. The most important consideration on this
issue is the defining of major religious holidays. Why should
we at UK get into the matter of certifying which are major
religious holidays and which are approved as "excused
absences?" Would that kind of certification fit in with our
understanding of constitutional principles regarding the gov-
ernmental establishment of religion? I ask the Senators to
preserve a valuable tradition at UK and not engage in authen-
tication of what is and what is not appropriate activity
outside the classroom beyond the limited university-sanctioned
activities that already have been approved. Please respect the
good sense and judgement of your colleagues and handle these
and other matters on an individual basis."

Professor Rea wanted to know what constituted a major religious holiday.
Professor Gesund suggested letting the religious advisors staff do that since they
said they would be willing to determine what the major holidays were, and he felt
that was fair. Professor Eakin wanted to know if the religious advisors wanted to
rule on all the other excuses, and he wanted to know if minor religions would have
any rights. The Chair said the term major modified ”holidays” not religions.
Student Senator Osborne did not see that as a problem because students had to
notify the instructor the first two weeks of class. Professor Lyons felt the
major problem was the question of defining religious holidays. He said the propo—
sal stated that the student would declare in writing which days are their
particular religious holidays. Professor McMahon felt the majority of the laws in
this country are worded in a general sense and if common sense is used to resolve
interpretations of words involved in the rule on an ad hoc basis, there would be
no problem. He further suggested that people were conjuring up problems that he
anticipated would not arise. He did not feel that students would come up with
religions or holidays that do not exist. He said if farfetched claims arose, then
appeal the rule.

Professor Demski said another issue was that faculty were burdened enough with
their teaching and research responsibilities. He felt some students would find
religious holidays to get out class. There would particularly be a burden in
giving makeup exams, and the more the rules are flexible the more need there would
be for a makeup for every major exam. He was sympathetic with people's religious
feelings. He asked who would make the judgment if an instructor questioned a stu-
dent‘s religious feelings. The Chair said the proposal stated that the University
Ombudsman may be asked to intervene by either concerned party.

The motion in favor of adopting the proposal passed with a hand count of 42 to
21 and reads as follows:

Proposal: [New portion is underlined]
V.2.4.2 Excused absences:

4. Major Religious Holidays. Students are responsible for

 

 

 notifying the instructor.inuuniting of anticipated
absences due to their observance of such holidays no
later than the last day for adding a class.

 

 

 

Background and Rationale:

The inclusion of major religious holidays in the definition of
excused absences was suggested at the October Senate meeting in the
discussion-which followed the vote to postpone consideration of the
absence policy until November. The UK Faculty Association on Jewish
Affairs after discussion with several other religious organizations,
submitted this proposal to the Senate Council. The Senate Council
takes no position on the proposal, but is glad to place it on the
Senate agenda. The subsequent explanation in the following para-
graphs is written by the Faculty Association on Jewish Affairs.

 

In view of the fact that the University Senate does at present have
an Excused Absence Policy, it may be assumed by faculty, students
and staff that any reason for missing a lecture, laboratory, or
examination, other than those specifically mentioned in Section V.,
l2.4.2 is not recognized as legitimate by the University. As the
University of Kentucky is a state institution, financed in large
part by public monies, it is also reasonable to assume that the
University should abide by the "Free Exercise Clause" of the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects the individual
student's right to practice his or her own religion. It therefore
seems to be both rational and in the best interests of the
University to include major religious holidays as a valid reason for
a student to be absent from class, etc.

The student must assume the obligation of notifying the instructor
in writing of any potential conflicts with classroom activities or
examination dates at the beginning of each semester so that there is
ample time for all parties concerned to make the necessary accommo-
dations. Students missing work due to religious holidays will bear
the responsibility to make up the work. The faculty member involved
will be expected to provide the students with the opportunity to
take missed examinations at a mutually convenient time.

In the event that the instructor and the student cannot reach a
satisfactory accommodation the University Ombudsman may be asked to
intervene by either concerned party. The Ombudsman has both the
authority and responsibility to mediate the dispute. (By making the
student responsible for prior notification rather than the Ombuds-
man, his/her role and a neutral mediator responsible for the
determination of what constitutes a major religious holiday is
preserved.) The Ombudsman is encouraged to publicize the Absence
Policy in either the Kentucky Kernel or through other appropriate
channels as he/she sees fit at the commencement of each academic
semester.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1986

 

 The last item on the agenda was for discussion only. It was the report and
recommendations from the ad hoc Committee on General Education. [PLEASE NOTE:
This item is attached at the—end of the minutes.] The Chair recognized Professor
Wilbur Frye for a motion relating to the rule of consideration of the agenda item
at the December meeting. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Frye moved to
waive the ten-day circulation rule. There was no objection. Also, on behalf of
the Senate Council, Professor Frye moved that all amendments to the proposal must
be submitted in writing to the Senate Council by November 22. Each amendment
requires sponsorship of a senator and seconded on the floor. Amendments to the
amendments or editorial changes would be accepted. Professor Pass objected.

 

Debate on the motion to suspend the rules followed. Professor Rea‘s
understanding was that if two-thirds of the Senate felt it was important to go
against that rule, the Senate could at the December meeting rescind the motion and
adopt amendments. The Chair deferred to the parliamentarian who ruled that would
be legitimate. He added there was an avenue out because amendments to the amend-
ment could be made. The Chairman said the Senate Council was not trying to cut
off debate, just last minute surprises.

Professor Naldhart said it was well to have proposals in advance as much as
possible, because it was not the kind of thing to make drastic changes and have to
make decisions on the basis of no forethought.

There was no further discussion on the motion to suspend the rules for the
December meeting and require that all amendments to the General Studies Program be
circulated in advance and be received in the Senate Council Office by November

27. The motion passed with a hand count of 47 to l0.

The floor was opened for discussion only on the General Education Proposal.
The proposal contained both the original Swift Committee Report and five (5)
amendments which the Senate Council is proposing. It also contained some
explanation of both the financing and the implementation. The Chair noted that
the Senate Council had not discussed the implementation policy to any great degree
and would be interested in the reactions of the members of the Senate and the
University Community to the implementation as well as to the substance of the
proposal.

Professor Swift called to the Senate's attention a letter he wrote on behalf
of the committee with a recommendation regarding the implementation of the pro-
posal. The committee endorsed the whole action of the Senate Council including
the implementation. The Chair added the Senate Council has agreed to alter the
oral communication requirement somewhat to make the course choice one being left
up to the supervisory committee.

Professor Eakin reported for the record that calculus l23 and 113 were
appropriate courses for fulfilling the mathematics requirement.

Dean Williams wanted to know if there would be an additional committee to
further elucidate what particular courses in the different areas would be
considered appropriate. She wanted to know the expectation for moving through a
clear understanding of what would be acceptable. ‘Professor Swift said in the
report the committee thought it was inappropriate at this time to pick specific
courses. He said a committee would have to determine which specific courses

 

 belong in the proposal. Professor Rizzo felt it was important to note that the
recommendations in the report are very important to the image of the University of
Kentucky. He thought the criticism that had been leveled against the University
that it was a piecemeal type of experience for the student. He hoped in the
implementation of the program there would be more contact with full faculty at the
lower level and not less. Chairman Canon said in the letter of feasibility which
Chancellor Art Gallaher sent to the Senate Council, he indicated that he was of
the opinion that the percentage of freshman and sophomore classes taught by
teaching assistants was already too high and had taken into consideration finances
of this program. He was assuming that much of the new money would have to be used
to hire faculty rather than using teaching assistants. Dean Baer said that real—
istically the basic skills courses that are added to the program that students are
not currently taking will be covered by additional teaching assistants or part—
time instructors. To have those basic skills courses taught by regular faculty
would mean considerable use of additional funds.

Dean Robinson personally supported the ideals of general education. He did
have some problems from a faculty point of view because any programs in the
College of Allied Health are very specific particularly in the professional course
work and what needs to be taught in order to provide a professional degree. He
felt the additional requirements would add time to the degree programs which are
already bursting and might add another year to a program. His hope was that some
of the existing r