xt7vq814r94g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7vq814r94g/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1976-02-09 minutes 2004ua061 English Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 9, 1976 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 9, 1976 1976 1976-02-09 2020 true xt7vq814r94g section xt7vq814r94g

I
f
I
1
313
i
_ege T
1
1nd (
1

mm 'vY":-.'.-"'*'- . ....... .... . ...,.

_ _ WW,-,_.--W1WMw~umym-5mm...m_wu-~.......m......,,_., . , . .

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1976

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February
9, 1976, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Malcolm Jewell presided.
Members absent: C. Dwight Auvenshine*, John G. Banwell*, Harry Barnard*, Charles
E. Barnhart, Betsy Barnum, Jerry M. Baskin*, Robert P. Belin*, Joanne Bell*,
Jack C. Blanton, Joan Blythe,* Garnett L. Bradford, Joseph T. Burch, Hugh Burkett*,
H. Stuart Burness*, Carl Cabe, Donald B. Clapp, Necia Coker*, Ronda S. Connaway*,
Foy Cox, Alfred L. Crabb, Rhonda Crowdus, Vincent Davis*, John A. Deacon*, Robert
J. DeAngelis, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, William H. Dennen*, Ronald
Dillehay, Mary Duffy, Anthony Eardley, Fred Edmonds*, Robert 0. Evans*, Diane
Eveland*, Art Gallaher*, Claudine Gartner*, Dennis George*, James Gibson, Ward
0. Griffen*, Joseph Hamburg, George W. Hardy, James Harralson, Virgil W. Hays*,
Andrew J. Hiatt, Sara L. Holroyd*, Raymond R. Hornback, David Howardi Raymon D.
Johnson*, William F. Kenkel*, James Knoblett*, Theodore A. Kotchen*, A. Virginia
Lane*, Thomas Lawrence, Samuel Lippincott*, Charles Masters, William L. Matthews,
Susan A. McEvoy*, Randolph McGee*, James Metry*, Stacie Meyer, James T. Moore*,
Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Janet Patterson*, Margie Peak, David
Peck, Steven Petrey, Jeanne Rachford*, John A. Rea*, Thurlow R. Robe*, JoAnn
Rogers*, John S. Scarborough, Rudolph Schrils*, Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith,
Don M. Soule*, M. Lynn Spruill, J. Truman Stevens*, Sharon Stevens*, William C.
Templeton*, Earl Vastbinder, M. Stanley Wall, Richard Warren, Julie Watkins*,
Paul A. Willis, William G. Winter, Fred Zechman, Ellen Roehrig*.

The minutes of the meeting of December 8, 1975 were accepted as circulated.

On behalf of the College of Agriculture Dr. William Schneider presented the
following Resolution on the death of Dr. Clair S. Waltman. Following his presen—
tation the Senators were asked to stand for a moment of silence in tribute and
respect to Dr. Waltman and in acceptance of the Resolution.

Clair S. Waltman (1896 — 1975) a member of the Horiculture Department
from 1924 — 1967 died on December 24, 1975. He had been retired since 1967.

He was a native of Michigan and graduated from Michigan State University
in 1923. He received the M.S. degree in 1930 from the University of Kentucky
and the Ph.D in 1940 from Michigan State University. Dr. Waltman served in
the Horticulture department as teacher and researcher until his retirement
in 1967 after 43 years of service. He taught the beginning horticulture
course for much of this period, all of the other pomology courses and
served as advisor to graduate students in Pomology. Studenm enjoyed ”Walt's”
courses because he made them so interesting with his wide knowledge and
wonderful sense of humor and his personal approach to the students. He
remembered them for many years after they left the University. Dr. Waltman
also devoted much of his time to research with fruits in the area of
nutrition and variety evaluation.

Dr. Waltman was an avid supporter of University of Kentucky athletic
teams and was interested in all sports. He was an excellent bowler and
bowled in the University league for many years. He also enjoyed fishing
and in his later years often took his grandson on fishing expeditions — it
is difficult to say who enjoyed them most.

Clair Waltman was an outstanding teacher and a true gentlemen.
The Faculty of the College of Agriculture wishes to express to Mrs.

Waltmaiand his daughter, Betty, their deep sympathy and feeling of mutual
sorrow in the loss of this beloved teacher, associate and friend.

*Absence explained.

- 1
.7;
.H
V 1‘ 1
ii”-

~ 1
in

'1"3'.""If‘im*4*l'ﬂéﬂ:.‘l?.\x“:{“.?1"f"-v--'5w.d<1 a. “I“ c a. .n....,.,,, . u.

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1976 — cont

I move that this Resolution be spread upon the minutes of the University
Senate and that copies be sent to Dr. Waltman's family. jgfh\

Chairman Jewell made the following remarks to the Senate: ll

As most of you know, the Senate Council and the Senate Council Chair— ‘
manship change as of the first of the year, and that is why I am before you r
instead of Dr. Krislov. We have three new Senate COuncil members: Professors .
Paul Oberst, Secretary of the Senate Council; Constance P. Wilson; and Richard (

Robe.

Looking through the minutes of the previous Senate meetings I find
that there is a very inconsistent precedent that the incoming Chairman
make some remarks. So I decided to strengthen that precedent.

I want to say a little bit about how I think the Senate should operate

and how we plan to operate during the next year. I have been on the Senate , /\
approximately half of the time in the 18 years that I have been here and I “W!“
have seen it operating very well and very efficiently, and making some very WV

intelligent decisions, and I have heard some very interesting debates. I
have also seen the Senate, on occasion, doing, I thought, very poorly. [

I think the job of the Council is to make sure the Senate does what it (
can do best with the least amount of time being wasted. I think the Senate
operates best when its members understand the issue, are well informed about K
it, either because it is a matter that they know intimately, like problems [

I
l

of tenure, or because it is a matter that they have been well informed about

through committee reports, through material being distributed, et_cete£a.

In those areas, and there are many of them, where most of us know very little

about details of a proposal, what we need to make the Senate work well is .

detailed Committee reports, a lot of information, a lot of explanation to us,

as Senate members, about why a particular proposal is being brought forward, [
l

because this is an extremely varied University. Most of us not in the

Medical Center know and understand very little about what goes on over

there. Conversely, the Medical Center people have relatively little contact “y”\
with many of the problems and questions that arise elsewhere in the Univ! “El“.
ersity. All of us, from time to time, find ourselves grappling with problems
of admission or problems of professional programs that we don't encounter

in our day-to—day work within our own departments and our own fields. It is in
those areas that we are particularly dependent upon committee and staff work,

in effect, for information. This is one reason why we have deluged you with f
|

a very long description of this Nursing program that we are going to be
dealing with today. It seemed to me that we needed enough information so that
members of the Senate would not come in to this meeting completely unprepared-

We will try not to waste the time of the Senate. I suspect it costs us
$1500 to $2000 in salaries for a meeting of the Senate and we shouldn't I
be spending that amount of valuable time just sitting here talking. I '
believe if we have briefing or information sessions, they should be kept as [

brief as possible with as much written background as possible. I think it 1'_
is important to keep the members of the Senate informed. I think it is / r\
important to keep the members of the faculty and students who are not on %W»

the Senate well informed and I will try to see if the Council cannot explore K
some ways during the next few months to get more information and interchange i
back and forth on this campus about important issues that are coming before

the Senate or that are being explored by Senate committees. I think we need
to improve the information channels on campus.

W*7»:—u~wlm“n ""““""‘"i-

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, I976 - cont

[ Several years ago I was the Chairman of a Committee which reported

f\ a number of proposals for changing the committee structure of the Senate:— if
ﬁg“ to strengthen the committee system. I think the plan we came up with, ' 33
.I .‘ which was adopted, has done that. I think we succeeded in spreading the J

'2‘:
:I
'1?
l

I work load and in spreading the responsibility. What we were trying to
do and what we are continuing to try to do is to engage the members of
l ' the Senate in the work of one committee of their choice, whenever possible,
{ on a continuing basis for the entire three—year term, unless the Senator
has some reason for particularly wanting to shift committees, so that we
d ( will develop, among other things, continuity on these committees. We
f are depending on the committees for continuing exploration of issues and
problems in their field of jurisdiction. The Council may send to the
committees, from time to time, specific suggestions, proposals, and
recommendations. But we are counting on the committee members to become
, familiar with the issues under their jurisdiction and to initiate suggestions
l themselves. This requires several things to work. It requires that Senators
I go to committee meetings. It requires that they take an interest in the
'/\\ committees. We are not talking about "make” work; we are not talking about ,
“a“ trying to keep everybody busy running to meetings. We are simply suggesting l
H“ that unless these committees are working effectively, and most people are
putting some time into them, the whole system will fall apart. I think it
may be that some of the committees need reorganizing; maybe some of them
\ are too big; maybe some of them are too broad in scope—~one of the things I?
( we intend to look at before the end of the semester. Some committees, ‘
because of the nature of their jobs, regularly have things they need to
l work on like Academic Programs, and Admissions and Standards. Other
{ committees have more general oversight or study responsibilities, and
I
l

more of the initiative rests with them. I think any one of us who has ever
been in the Senate any length of time or in the University any length of
time, has served on committees and found that work often very frustrating.

i
Sometimes you make reports and nobody ever does anything with them. Some— ‘ 1
times you make reports and someone tells you someone else made that report ‘ h
a couple of years ago and you are just repeating what someone else has I
already done, and no one told you about it. I have sometimes felt that i
the only committees that were any good at all were the ones in departments, }
because at least they were small enough so that there was some fighting ,
chance that what you recommended would actually be carried out. ‘

. [ So what I think we have to do to make the committee system work is to

in ‘ avoid duplication of committee effort; avoid situations where one committee

[ in the Senate is working on something and another committee elsewhere is

( working on something and no one knows what the other is doing; coordinate
the work of committees. Perhaps we need, for lack of a better term, an 'ﬁ

I ”institutional memory”, a filing system, a centralized way of keeping track h

l of what has been done in the past by some of these reports so that when , h

a committee sets out to deal with a problem, it has a record of what other j

l groups, or other committees, have thought about such a problem over the _ ~j

l last several years. Surely we ought to be able to handle that. And I ‘ ' j

think.we need to make sure that something is done with committee reports «{

when they are made. When reports of Committees come to the Senate Council, :

, i we will take these reports seriously; we will look at them. We may send 3

, them back to committee for additional advice, suggestions, or modifications, :
hIh‘ but we will not simply swallow them and let them disappear. Then we will

\ bring them to the floor and, if for any reason the Council fails to bring A

them to the floor, the Senate Committees themselves have the authority, ’

under the Rules of the Senate, to do so after a period of months.In other words

-:' m. --a~.;ma..4..w;_‘_~.q_~u“_ ......._,v.__~_._.,w g . -

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, I976 - cont

we don't have any veto in the Council over reports of Committees. But it
does sometimes make sense to hold these things up a while until it is clear
what the problems are, what possible jurisdictional conflicts involving
other committees come up, what questions the committees may not have
thought of, gt cetera. In other words, it sometimes makes sense for a
Council to sit on a committee report for a while, to send it back to
committee, or to talk to committee members about it, but not to bury it.

I suspect that one of the things the Senate has not been doing as
well as it might, and its committees have not been doing as well as they
might, is taking some long—term looks at problems facing the University.
In fact, the Committee I previously mentioned that I was on that tried to
reorganize the Senate structure and the committee structure, felt that
there was need from more long—term appraisal and long—term consideration
of some of these problems that we don't seem to have time to deal with in the
rush of immediate problems. We are still trying to find ways of doing (

(

4‘. a.“ ~_./ ~

that very effectively. I would like to invite you to send to me, or to

send to the Council, letters, suggestions of any kind about problems you

think the Senate ought to be dealing with over the next several years, ,
things that are coming down the road at us that we ought to start thinking *ﬂqa‘
about. I would like suggestions about ways we ought to focus on this :V
unending problem of trying to come to grips with the needs and priorities

and goals of the University. Do you have suggestions about things we ought

to be doing along these lines, or the more immediate things that you think

the Senate ought to be studying that we don't seem to be paying any

attention to. I think we need to have continuing oversight of some of the

newer and experimental programs of the University——things like the Devel—
opmental Studies Program, The Experiential Education program, the General

Studies Program in Arts and Sciences.

One of the things we Suggested several years ago that ought to be
done is to develop some policy statements—~a booklet or a folder of policy
statements that the Senate would adopt, to supplement or complement the
Senate Rules. We haven't done that yet. But it might help us a little
to see what the gaps are in our policy—making, the things we have failed
to pay attention to.

:J-‘Ja'daila'fié 1'4

(

{

I
We have, in this University, one of the strongest Senates, I suspect My“
in any university in the country. I think in recent years we have matured
a lot; we have developed some rules and procedures of operating; we have
outgrown confrontation among students and faculty members and administration;
we have developed some very close working relationships. We are not in a
position where we have to assert the power and authority of the Senate.
What we have to do is find ways of using the authority and the intelligence
of the Senate as efficiently as possible.

Let me turn to a few remarks about the "No smoking” Resolution adopted
in this place two months ago. I do not have any recommendation to bring to you
from the Council on implementing this. But I want you to understand we have
not ignored it. If you will recall, after this resolution was passed, with—
out any details being put into the resolution on the rationale for it or
how it might be enforced, Dr-Cochran asked the Senate to tell the Adminis—
tration how to go about enforcing it, and this problem was referred to the
Senate Council. The Senate Council has spent parts of two meetings wrestling
with this problem. I have met with the President and other members of the
Administration on it. Dr. Zumwinkle and Dean Burch have studied it; the
Advisory Committee on the Student Code has studied it; so it is not that
we have been ignoring the problem. We did send a memo from the Council to

3?; is.-- A
3

4‘. —‘.»—\ ~_./ ~

3 r

you

,‘ mWarotuu—WJWR”WHIV~VRR:E¢ _ n»

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1976 e cont 4048

every member of the faculty suggesting what steps we thought should be
taken to comply with the letter and the spirit of the resolution regarding
not smoking in class and making sure that students knew and were reminded
of this policy. In the process of drawing up that statement and dis—
cussing it, I think we arrived at an agreement in the Council that the
justification for the Senate's adopting this policy was that it seemed

to create an atmosphere in the classroom conducive to learning and to
protect the rights of those students who really were seriously dis—
advantaged by smoking in the classroom. Some of us on the Council felt
that perhaps we could get by without detailed complex rules for enforce—
ment and perhaps the thing would be sort of self—enforcing. Other members
of the University community, and I think some of the Administration, felt
that probably that would not do; that the problem had come up and we had
to have some way of settling it. There have been suggestions around the
campus that somebody ought to be enforcing this thing. I think we all
agree on the Senate Council that one cannot enforce the policy in any
strict sense until mechanisms for doing so have been set up. The
problem then is to find some way of putting something in a logical place
in the Senate Rules so that the policy can be enforced. Let me just
mention three approaches that we have tried, so far unsuccessfully, so
that you will see the problem.

The Senate Council suggested to the Administration that it might be
possible to attach to the Student Code in Section 1.21 a. of Part I, where
there is a ban on interfering with the rights of Others on University
property, a specific statement that smoking in the clasgrooms did interfere
with the rights of others. The Advisory Committee on Student Code Revision
decided that it was inappropriate to attach it to that section, which they
felt was designed for other kinds of interference. Furthermore, they felt
that the ban on smoking should not go anywhere in the Student Code but in
the Academic Code, Part II——the part for which the Senate has responsibility.

The Senate Council considered a plan to define, under the Academic
Rights of Students, a right to attend class in an atmosphere conducive
to learning, which included no smoking. The idea would be that faculty
would enforce this by dropping anyone from a course who persisted in
refusing to obey a request not to smoke. The Council rejected that
because the Student Rights Section does not have other enforcement pro—
cedures; because of a feeling that faculty members should not have the
right to throw a student out of a class for smoking probably because
they don't have the right to throw them out of class for cheating and
plagiarism. So that approach, which seemed for a few hours like it might
be the way to do it, failed.

A third possibility is to create a new section——a new academic offense——
parallel with the cheating and plagiarism offense. It seems to some of us
that that is incongruous, that it is not a parallel kind of situation.
Whether we could broaden that section and have a clause on behavior in the
classroom, that anyone who disrupts the atmosphere of a classroom, or who
smokes, would be engaged in an academic offense, I don't know. This is
another possibility. But it is difficult because the entire enforcement
procedure in that section is built around plagiarism and cheating. You
start with giving a student an F on an exam. It doesn't make much sense
to give them an F on an exam if they are smoking during that exam. But
at least that is another possibility. And it is possible that under
academic offenses we can find a way to do it. We are still searching for
a method that will make sense; we are still searching for an answer to the

.1 alummumrmey-smmu -

’ :11"; . ,4. . .‘ 5'24.“ aggga-mmﬁgza.a'gmmauwtﬁrrmm

awarwxzanrsmmwn»warn-w .x-.. rm 1 .2“...

-~v-vr-;.. . H.

4049 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1976 — cont

question of whether it is reasonable to expect faculty members to enforce
this by dropping students from class; we are still searching for a way'of
protecting the rights of those students who are bothered by smoking with—

out infringing on the rights of students who engage in that behavior in the

classroom. I certainly hope that before this semester is over we can get
this solved in a way that will be generally satisfactory to everyone. In

the meantime, we hope that the system will work on a voluntary basis. Maybe
as time goes by we will learn something about how well it is working or not

working.

On behalf of the Graduate Faculty Dr. Wimberly C. Royster, Dean of the
Graduate School, presented the proposed candidates for honorary degrees at the
May 1976 Commencement. Dr. Royster presented four candidates with the request
that the names be withheld until the Board of Trustees has taken action and
the nominees have accepted. Following his presentation the Senate voted to
accept the four proposed candidates for recommendation to the President and
Board of Trustees.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Paul Oberst presented a motion
that the proposal of the College of Nursing for a new two—year program (Cir—
culated to the faculty under date of January 26, 1976) be approved, as follows:

1. The freshman class admitted in Fall, 1975, shall be the last
freshman class accepted into the College of Nursing.

2. At such date as shall permit the freshman class of 1975 to complete

the existing curriculum in nursing without detriment or deficit, the

present four—year curriculum of the College of Nursing shall be discon—

tinued.

3. The College of Nursing undergraduate program shall become an upper
division professional program admitting licensed registered nurses, and

leading to a baccalaureate degree in Nursing.

4. Approval in principle of the proposed nursing curriculum, with the

understanding that the College of Nursing will Submit through normal
channels the specific new curriculum with the requisite applications
to add and drop courses.

Chairman Jewell called on Dean Marion E. McKenna of the College of Nursing
to present the background for this proposal. Dean McKenna's remarks follow:

The College of Nursing, given the consent of this Senate, is
preparing to embark upon a curriculum designed to prepare nurses for
future roles in the health care delivery system in Kentucky. This is
not to suggest that our present program does not have value, but there
are current and emerging roles for nurses for which there is no academic
program in the Commonwealth. Because of our location in a university
medical center, we believe we are in a position to provide leadership
in the preparation of nurses for these new roles while other programs
may continue to prepare for beginning staff nurse positions.

There have been marked changes since 1960. When the College of
Nursing first began its program, there were no associate degree programs

in Kentucky; today there are 17, which in November, 1975 had 2,297 students
enrolled. There were no primary care practitioners in nursing. Today they

are a vital part of the health care delivery system in Kentucky and over
the nation.

—_Wmﬁmw‘»‘——w- ,, ..

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1976 — cont

Given that some form of national health insurance will be forth—
coming in the near future, and 215 million citizens will be seeking
health care as opposed to acute or "sick” care, it will be essential
that health personnel be prepared in sufficient numbers to meet the
demands. Experience and research have indicated that nurse personnel
will continue to be the largest segment of the delivery system.

For these reasons, the College of Nursing is proposing to provide
an upper division program for registered nurses who have graduated
from associate degree or diploma (hospital) schools of nursing. We
propose to include nursing courses and general education courses
designed to meet the area requirements of the University, and to
prepare nurses for leadership roles in community nursing, long—term
care facilities, and/or acute care institutions. Because we are now
obliged, within our upper division program, to prepare the graduates
to write a licensing examination, we are deterred from providing the
types of educational courses and experiencesdesigned to broaden the
scope of practice of the baccalaureate graduate.

The students will transfer 60 semester hours of credit from the
associate degree program, and will complete 68 semester hours in the
two years of the University upper division.

This program is in accord with the recommendations made by the
National Commission for the Study of Nursing and Nursing Education in
1973:

”l. Increasingly, the two—year institutions will become
feeder schools to the baccaluareate programs.
Students will enter upper division courses possessed
of formidable amounts of knowledge and skill, and
already licensed to practice as a registered nurse.

”2. Four—year institutions must not only reorganize
themselves to admit these students, but must cope
with the fact that what they have been doing in
'upper division' courses must be sharply altered
to provide a true continuation of education with
the expanded electives and deepened scientific and
clinical content.”

In addition, it is in accord with the recommendations made to
the Council on Public Higher Education by the ad_hgg_Study Group on
Nursing. ”Develop a coordinated system of nursing education in
Kentucky's institutions of higher education in which each program
contains the entry level content for the next higher level of education,
and students are awarded full credit for their previous education."

The College of Nursing faculty believe that we are, by virtue
of the competence of our faculty and the resources available to us,
in a position to conduct a program of professional education which
is academically sound, designed to assist in meeting Kentucky's
need for health care personnel, and available to conduct research
on nursing education and nursing practice to continue to improve the
quality of both areas.

. ‘I-M'ﬂﬁ-Efﬂmvw,.rmllmrthnnun-unfunny?

. . —~I:..;m4mn‘r;a:§‘l¥4&’¥§r"~~—_--..-am . . _ .

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1976 — cont

You have had the written material about the proposed changes
and if there are any questions, I will be happy to respond to them.

Following a question and answer period the University Senate voted to
approve the proposal of the College of Nursing for the new two—year program
in the College of Nursing, as presented.

The Senate adjourned at 4:06 p.m.

Kathryne W. Shelburne
Recording Secretary

UNIVERSITY SENATE AGENDA February 9, 1976

Minutes

Memorial resolution

Informational items:

a) Introduction of New Council Members

b) Chairman' 5 Remarks

c) Implementation of No-Smoking Policy

Action items:
a) Candidates for honorary degrees.
b) Proposal of the College of Nursing for a new

Two—Year Program (circulated under date of
January 26, 1976).

LNMVERSHYCNrKENTUCKY

DEAN OF ADMISSXONS AND REGISTRAR

February 11,

Mrs» Gene C. Harmon
109 Shawnee Place
Lexington, Kentucky 40503

Dear Mrs. Harmon:

At its meeting of this past Mbnday, February 9, 1976, the
University Senate heard the enclosed Resolution read on the death
of your father and the Senate directed that the Resolution be
spread upon the minutes of that meeting a d that you be sent a
copy.

We extend our sympathy to yen in the 10 ‘ of your father.
He was a valued former member of tee Universit' faculty and made
many fine contributions to the * versity of Kentzcky.

Cordially yours?

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary, University Senate

Enc105ure

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

January 26, 1976

Member 5 , Univer sity Senate

Univer sity Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: Monday, February 9, 1976
Proposal of the College of Nursing for a New
Two—Year Program

The Senate Council has approved the following proposal
of the College of Nursing, which had earlier been approved by
the Academic Council for the Medical Center and by the Under—
graduate Council:

1. The Freshman Class admitted in fall, 1975, shall
be the last Freshman Class accepted into the College
of Nursing.

2. At such date as shall permit the Freshman Class
of 1975 to complete the existing curriculum in nursing
without detriment or deficit, the present four—year
curriculum of the College of Nursing shall be discon—
tinned.

3. The College of Nursing undergraduate program
shall become an upper division professional program
admitting licensed registered nurses, and leading to
a baccalaureate degree in Nursing.

4. Approval in principle of the proposed nursing

curriculum, with the understanding that the College
of Nursing will submit through normal channels the
specific new curriculum with the requisite applica—

tions to add and drop courses.

The Senate Council will circulate materials providing background
for this proposal and outlining the proposed curriculum prior to the
February 9 meeting.

/cet

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

UNFVERSHW’OFI