xt7zgm81pc83 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7zgm81pc83/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1989-12-04 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, December 4, 1989 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 4, 1989 1989 1989-12-04 2020 true xt7zgm81pc83 section xt7zgm81pc83 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 4, 1989
The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
December 4, 1989, in room ll5 of the Nursing/Health Sciences Building.
Donald C. Leigh, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.
Members absent were: Charles T. Ambrose, Michael Baer, Harry V. Barnard*,
Mark C. Berger*, Raymond F. Betts, James D. Birchfield, George E. Blandford*,
Glenn C. Blomquist*, Susannah Bobys, Peter P. Bosomworth, T. Earle Bowen,
Douglas Boyd, Joan C. Callahn, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr., Ben W. Carr, Edward
A. Carter, Michael L. Cibull*, Jordan L. Cohen, Mary Sue Coleman*, Ann
Davidson, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Vincent Drnevich, Ronald D. Eller*, Charles
W. Ellinger, J. Brauch Fugate, Daniel L. Fulks, Richard W. Furst, Lester
Goldstein, Lynne Hall*, Marilyn C. Hamann, Zafar Hasan*, Robert E. Hemenway,
Micki King Hogue, Stephanie Howard, Bruce Hunt, Craig L. Infanger, Richard A.
Jensen*, David C. Johnson*, Edward J. Kasarskis*, Kenneth K. Kubota*, Gerald
Lemons, C. Oran Little*, Beth Loafman, James R. Marsden*, Richard V.
McDougall*, Jim Musser*, Robert C. Noble*, Jose Oubrerie, John J. Piecoro,
Jr.*, Thomas R. Pope, Deborah E. Powell, Nicholas Rast, Thomas C. Robinson,
David P. Roselle*, Edgar L. Sagan, Frank A. Scott*, Michael C. Shannon*,
Dennis M. TeKrony, Richard H. Underwood*, Michael A. Webb, Charles T.
Wethington, Carolyn A. Williams*, Eugene Williams, Emery A. Wilson*, and W.
Douglas Wilson.
The Minutes of the meetings of September 25, 1989, and October l6, 1989,
were approved as circulated.
The Chairman made the following announcements:
The Holiday Social for this year is next Tuesday, December
12 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. in the King Alumni House. The Board
of Trustees are meeting at 4:00 p.m., and they have been invited
to attend after the Board Meeting. We hope there will be a good
turnout from the Board of Trustees.
The elections to the Senate Council have been concluded,
and I am pleased to announce the successful candidates. They
are Glen Blomquist, Department of Economics; Lynn Hall, College
of Nursing; and Robert Noble, College of Medicine.
I would like to report briefly on some meetings that the
Senate Council has had with various groups this fall. We
continue to have a monthly breakfast meeting with President
Roselle. In recent months Chancellor Hemenway has attended, and
we have also extended an invitation to Chancellor Bosomworth.
Recently I have started attending Chancellor Hemenway's
meetings with Deans of the Lexington Campus and Carolyn Bratt
has been attending Chancellor Bosomworth's meetings with his
cabinet and deans. All of these meetings are very helpful in
*Absence explained.
keeping the faculty abreast of what is going on in the
administration and providing some faculty input early in the
administrative process.
In September we had a breakfast meeting with the local
legislators to discuss the outlook for funding for higher
education in the next biennium. I have had one meeting this
fall with the deans or associate deans of undergraduate affairs
of all the colleges to discuss in a preliminary way any rules
changes that may be proposed. This was a practice which former
Chair Loys Mather started, and I think it is a very good one.
The Chair of the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
also attends these meetings. These meetings provide a useful
interchange between the various colleges about their practices
and problems that they may have in the area of undergraduate
affairs. There are some graduate related affairs also.
The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem for a Memorial
Resolution.
MEMORIAL RESOLUTION
Francis Lorraine Yost
1908-1989
Professor Francis Lorraine Yost (emeritus) died Friday morning,
October 6, after an illness of several years. He was 81 years old.
A native of Punxsutawny, Pennsylvania. Francis Yost took his
bachelor's and master's degrees in physics at the University of
Kentucky, completing these in 1931. Professor Yost returned to his
alma mater in 1954 when he was appointed Head of the Physics
Department. He served in that role from 1954 until 1965; afterwards
he {Sggrned to the role of University professor until his retirement
in .
Francis Yost earned his Ph.D. degree at the University of
Wisconsin, working with Professor Gregory Breit, during Breit's
tenure there in the 19305. There Yost and Breit, in collaboration
with Dr. John A. Wheeler, then at the University of North Carolina,
developed analytical methods of providing exact solutions to the
Coulomb Schrodinger equation. Prior to their work nuclear reactions
were interpreted by using the WKB approximation to estimate Coulomb
penetrabilities. Yost, Wheeler and Breit, in their famous paper,
(Phys. Rev. 49, 174 (1936)) provided the first exact solutions for
the problem of the repulsive Coulomb potential. They published
formulae to enable others to calculate values, graphed the more
difficult irregular Coulomb wave functions, and published extensive
tabulations of the functions in the Journal of Terrestrial
Magnetism. They showed further that these exact solutions were quite
important to obtaining realistic Coulomb penetrabilities.
The famous Yost, Wheeler and Breit paper has stood as a landmark
for solving scattering problems from the 19305 until the present.
The Coulomb scattering amplitudes, and Coulomb scattering phase
shifts were enormously important to a generation of nuclear reactions
analysts, particularly those who were analyzing and interpreting
resonances in charged particle reactions. All who used and use
Coulomb phase shifts benefit directly from that early work. This
work was the 1936 Ph.D. dissertation of Francis Lorraine Yost at the
University of Wisconsin.
Francis subsequently joined L. W. Nordheim at Purdue
University. ’There Nordheim and Yost showed accurately, for the first
time, the rather large influence of Coulomb distortions on B-decay
transition rates, and the extraction of transition matrix elements
from decay intensities (L. W. Nordheim and F. L. Yost. Phys. Rev.
51, 942 (1937)). This work was another 1andmark paper, this time
enabling proper interpretation of Weak Interaction rates.
Later Francis was a physicist at the U. S. Rubber Company in
Detroit. He went on to a series of physics posts in the Washington,
D. C. area, and from 1945 to 1954 was at the U. S. Naval Ordnance
Laboratory, first as chief of the mathematics analysis division and
later as chief of the weapons analysis division. Francis and his
wife, Betty were married in 1954, just before returning to the
University of Kentucky. TWO years after returning to Kentucky they
went to Indonesia, where Francis was a visiting Professor from 1956
to 1958.
Professor Yost developed an introductory course in the mid—19605
for students with little mathematics background, and little prior
interest in the sciences. For this group of people he wrote a
special text which was used at the University for about eight years.
The two-semester course became so popular under his leadership, that
the enrollment swelled to as many as 1500 students in one semester.
He would present four lectures each day, most of them simultaneously
in two lecture halls. While he lectured and responded to questions
in one hall, students in the other watched a video monitor; the
following lecture period roles would be reversed in the two halls.
Francis became known, particularly in his later years, as a man
with a very large sense of humor, and a dry, sardonic wit. People
loved to hear humorous stories from Francis' large repertoire. He
enjoyed especially telling stories which featured his own human
foibles. During the early years of his retirement he often walked
the three miles from his home to the University, so that he could use
the Physics and Astronomy library. Throughout his life he was an
avid reader, and had read hundreds of books. Professor Yost is
survived by his wife, Betty, a brother, and a step—daughter and her
children.
Professor McEllistrem requested that the resolution be spread upon the
minutes and that a copy be sent to Mrs. Betty Yost at her Lexington address.
The Chair asked the Senate to rise for a moment of silence.
The Senate Council passed a resolution before the student rally last
Thursday. Chairman Leigh read the following resolution.
RESOLUTION
The University Senate of the University of Kentucky
believes the interests of the University are best served by
President Roselle remaining at UK during these critical times.
We urge him to stay with us.
We share his frustration because of the lack of adequate
funding for higher education in the state. We recognize the
uncertainty of whether there will be any significant improvement
in funding in the near future. We also know the positive impact
the Roselle presidency has had on both the University of
Kentucky and the state.
President Roselle has brought a sense of purpose to the
University. He has nurtured our desire to make UK one of the
best state universities in the nation. He has instilled in the
entire University community a sense of pride and institutional
commitment. Many faculty members who would have accepted more
lucrative offers from other universities have chosen to remain
at UK because of Dr. Roselle. His departure would cause those
faculty members to also think of leaving our institution thereby
compounding UK's loss.
We urge the state to renew and redouble its support for UK
by providing adequate funding to meet the institution's needs.
The Chairman stated that the resolution was approved by the University
Senate Council. He wanted to give the Senate an opportunity to also approve
the resolution which was moved and seconded by the Council. The floor was
opened for discussion. Hearing no discussion the Chair called for a vote.
The resolution unanimously carried.
Chairman Leigh stated that last Fall he talked to the Senate about COSFL,
the Coalition of Senate Faculty Leadership for Higher Education. That
organization is made up of four members from each of the state universities
and also from the Community College System. COSFL is organizing a lobbying
effort on behalf of higher education for the upcoming General Assembly.
Chairman Leigh stated that COSFL has a legislative agenda which has been
endorsed by the Senate Council. He read the agenda and asked for the Senate's
endorsement.
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
COSFL SUPPORTS the concept of education reform in Kentucky for
the purpose of creating an educational system that will produce
high quality students and productive citizens for the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
COSFL SUPPORTS full formula funding for the commonwealth-
supported universities of Kentucky.
COSFL SUPPORTS changes in legislation to improve the selection
process of candidates for possible appointment to the boards of
regents and trustees at the commonwealth—suported universities
of Kentucky.
COSFL SUPPORTS changes in legislation to extend to six years the
terms of memBers of the boards of regents and trustees at the
commonwealth-supported universities of Kentucky.
COSFL SUPPORTS an actuarily sound Kentucky Teacher's Retirement
System for faculty members of the commonwealth—suported
universities of Kentucky.
COSFL SUPPORTS the fundamental concept of a sound general
education program at the commonwealth-supported universities of
Kentucky.
COSFL SUPPORTS the position that intercollegiate athletic
programs at the comnonwealth-supported universities of Kentucky
be self—supporting.
The Chairman stated that the COSFL Legislative Agenda has been approved by
the Senate Council. The floor was opened for discussion. Hearing no
discussion the Chairman called for a vote. The Senate unanimously approved
the COSFL Legislative Agenda.
The Chair recognized Professor Carolyn S. Bratt, Chair-elect of the Senate
Council, for the first action item on the agenda. Professor Bratt, on behalf
of the Senate Council, moved approval of the proposal to amend University
Senate Rules, Section IV - 2.2.9, to add a specific program admisSion
requ1remenf for the Upper Division of the Chemical Engineering Program. She
stated that students would be admitted to the Chemical Engineering program
after completing CME 205 and CME 210. She added that both of the courses are
necessary prerequisites to all subsequent chemical engineering courses. This
proposal was circulated to members of the Senate 20 November 1989.
The motion was from the Senate Council and required no second. The floor
was opened for discussion. A student senator wanted to know about the present
situation and if students would take the courses as electives or would
students have to take six additional hours for the total number of hours
required for graduation. Professor Richard Kermode (Chemical Engineering)
stated the total number of required hours would not change.
There was no further discussion. The motion unanimously carried and reads
as follows:
Proposal:
C. 3. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Complete CME 205 and CME 210.
Rationale:
CME‘ZUE‘End CME 210 provide precursor information and
basic principles on materials balances, energy balances,
and physiochemical calculations that are absolutely
necessary for all subsequent chemical engineeing courses.
Implementation Date: Fall, 1990
The Chairman recognized Professor Bratt for the second action item.
Professor Bratt, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V — 3.3.l, Academic
Requirements and Exclusion for Poor Scholarship and Readmission, College of
Law. Professor Bratt stated that before a student may be readmitted, after
having been dropped for poor academic performance, he or she would have to
have the approval of the full law faculty. This proposal was circulated to
members of the Senate 16 November 1989.
The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Jo Ann Never (College
of Nursing) wanted to know how many faculty members there are in the College
of Law. She also wanted to know if this would make the readmission process
more cumbersome. Professor Never asked if there are regular faculty meetings
in the College of Law. Professor Bratt stated there are twenty-four full-time
faculty members in the College of Law. They meet regularly once a month with
special meetings just before the beginning of the Fall and Spring Semesters.
Professor Bratt said that the proposal would make the readmission process more
cumbersome, but a majority of the faculty is in favor of the proposal.
There was no further discussion. The motion carried and reads as
follows:
Proposal: [Add highlighted phrase.]
3.3.l College of Law
a. Academic Requirements and Exclusion for Poor Scholarship
All students in the College of Law must maintain a
satisfactory cumulative grade point average, and failure
to do so will result in the student being dropped from
the College for poor scholarship. Any student who
receives a grade point average below l.5 for his or her
first semester of law study may be dropped by the Dean on
recommendation of the Law Faculty Academic Status
Committee for poor scholarship. Any student who fails to
achieve a 2.0 cumulative grade point average at the end
of the first two semesters will automatically be dropped
for poor scholarship. In addition, any student whose
cumulative average falls below a 2.0 at the end of any
subsequent semester will also be dropped from the
College. (US:lO/ll/82)
Any student who receives a grade of E in a required
course must reregister for the course and complete all
requirements therefor. When such a required course is
retaken or when a student elects to repeat an elective
course in which he has received a failing grade, both the
initial and subsequent grade will be reflected on the
student's record and counted in the computation of class
standing, subject to Readmission standards below.
Readmission
Any student dropped for poor scholarship may petition the
Law Faculty Academic Status Committee for readmission. A
recommendation to the Dean for readmission is within the
discretion of the Committee; however, in most cases, the
fo11owing po1icies wi11 guide the Committee: a student
dropped after the first semester wi11 be required to
petition the fu11 Facu1ty for readmission; in the case
of students dropped at the end of the second semester, a
student with a cumulative grade average of 1.9 and above
wi11 norma11y be readmitted, a student with a cumu1ative
average of 1.7 to 1.89 may be readmitted but wi11 be
carefu11y scrutinized, and a student with a cumu1ative
average be1ow 1.7 wi11 norma11y not be readmitted; any
student dropped at the end of the third semester or
thereafter wi11 be subject to case-by-case ana1ysis.
Any student readmitted after being dropped at the end of
the second semester must make materia1 progress toward
raising his or her cumu1ative grade point average to 2.0.
Such student must raise his or her cumu1ative average to
2.0 by the end of the fourth semester. In addition to the
foregoing academic standards for readmission, the
Committee may impose additiona1 academic standards in
individua1 cases, and in any case may impose other
reasonab1e conditions of readmission inc1uding, but not
1imited to, 1imitation of outside work, specification of
schedu1e of study (inc1uding specification of particu1ar
courses and 1imitation of hours), and the 1imitation of
extracurricu1ar activities. The Committee with the
approva1 of the fu11 1aw facuity may a1so require the
repetition of courses either with or without substitution
of the grades awarded in the courses retaken. Fai1ure to
comp1y with the requirements and conditions of
readmission wi11 resu1t in the student being dropped from
the Co11ege a second time in which case he or she wi11
not be readmitted without approva1 of the University
Senate Counci1 upon the recommendation of the Dean
fo11owing action by the fu11 Law Facu1ty. Any student
aggrieved at any time by recommendation of the Academic
Status Committee may petition the fu11 Law Facu1ty for
rev1ew.
For purposes of the above ru1es, a student who is
required by the Academic Status Committee to repeat
fourteen (14) or more hours of the freshman curricu1um in
his or her third and fourth semester wi11 be considered
as enro11ed in his or her first and second semesters.
A student who has once been dropped for poor scho1arship
and who fai1s to have a 2.0 cumu1ative average at the end
of the semester or summer session in which he or she
comp1etes his 88th hour of course work wi11 not be
a11owed to graduate from the Co11ege of Law. Such student
wi11 not be a11owed to enro11 in additiona1 hours of
course work in an attempt to achieve a 2.0 cumu1ative
average. (US:11/8/76)
Back round: ”
ihe gollege of Law does not have a formal "academic
bankruptcy" rule that allows a student, at his or her
option, to repeat a course. The only time that a course
may be repeated (other than when it is failed) is when
the repetition of the course is imposed as a condition of
reinstatement after an academic dismissal. In other
words, the repetition is imposed by the College as part
of a remedial aspect of bringing a person back into the
academic community and to try to insure academic
success. This remedy has been used sparingly in the past
5 years; I believe there have been seven students who
have been forced to repeat all or part of their first
year of study as a condition of reinstatement. Of those
seven students, five have achieved good records on their
return; two were asked to leave the law school because of
continued poor academic performances.
The current Senate Rule calls for the Academic Status
Committee to make a recommendation to the dean in all
cases of reinstatement after a first academic dismissal.
Several faculty members have long believed that the
process of granting conditions of reinstatement requiring
the repetition of courses should be reviewed by the whole
Faculty.
The proposal was reviewed by the Senate's Committee on
Admissions and Academic Standards and the Senate Council
and is recommended for Senate approval.
Implementation Date: Immediately
The Chair again recognized Professor Bratt. Professor Bratt, on behalf
of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal to adopt a series
of admissions deadlines for inclusion in the University calendar. She noted
that the rationale states that the dates are much later than the cutoff dates
at most bench mark institutions. This proposal was circulated to members of
the Senate 16 November 1989.
Professor Hans Gesund (Civil Engineering) stated that it seemed to him
the University might be shutting itself off from some of the very best
students by setting the last date too early by which someone could be assured
of automatic acceptance. He felt that good students who might be turned down
by Harvard and applied at UK could not be guaranteed automatic acceptance even
though that student might have a 4.00 standing from high school. Professor
Joseph Fink (Director of Admissions) assured Professor Gesund the Admissions
Office would not turn that student away. Professor Fink also pointed out that
on page one under February l5, l990, is the current statement and no change is
being proposed. That has been the rule since selective admissions was
implemented five years ago. Professor Gesund asked if anyone had been turned
away such as National Merit Scholars. Professor Fink stated that no students
have been turned away.
Hearing no more comments the Chair called for a vote. The motion
unanimously carried and reads as follows:
Proposa1:
1990-91 PROPOSED ADMISSIONS DEADLINES
1990 FALL SEMESTER
February 15, 1990:
June 1, 1990:
August 1, 1990:
1991 SPRING SEMESTER:
October 15, 1990:
December 1, 1990:
Freshmen who app1y by this date wi11 be
guaranteed genera1 admission if they
meet automatic acceptance criteria.
App1icants after this date wi11 be
considered on a space—avai1ab1e basis.
This is true for students meeting
automatic admission criteria and
students meeting de1ayed admission
criteria. '
Undergraduates p1anning to participate
in the Summer Advising Conferences
(inc1uding registration for c1asses)
must submit an app1ication and a11
required documents to the Office of
Admissions by this date.
In order to be admitted for the 1990
Fa11 Semester, an undergraduate
app1icant must submit an app1ication
and a11 required documents to the
Office of Admissions by this date.
Exempted from this ru1e are non-degree
students who enro11 for eight hours or
1ess. These students may enr011
through the Evening/Weekend Program
before the beginning of c1asses.
Undergraduates p1anning to participate
in the November Advising Conferences
(inc1uding registration for c1asses)
must submit an app1ication and a11
required documents to the Office of
Admissions by this date.
In order to be admitted for the 1991
Spring Semester, an undergraduate
app1icant must submit an app1ication
and a11 required documents to the
Office of Admissions by this date.
Exempted from this ru1e are non-degree
students who enro11 for eight hours or
1ess. These students may enr011
through the Evening/Weekend Program
before the beginning of c1asses.
1991 FOUR—WEEK INTERSESSION
March 1, 1991: Undergraduates p1anning to participate
in the Apri1 Advising Conference
(inc1udes registration for c1asses)
must submit an app1ication and a11
required documents to the Office of
Admissions by this date.
Apri1 15, 1991: In order to be admitted for the 1991
Four-Week Intersession, an
undergraduate app1icant must submit an
app1ication and a11 required documents
to the Office of Admissions by this
date. Exempted from this ru1e are non-
degree students who enro11 for eight
hours or 1ess. These students may
enro11 through the Evening/Weekend
Program before the beginning of c1asses.
1991 EIGHT—WEEK SUMMER SESSION
March 1, 1991: Undergraduates p1anning to participate
in the Apri1 Advising Conference
(inc1uding registration for c1asses)
must submit an app1ication and a11
required documents to the Office of
Admissions by this date.
May 15, 1991: In order to be admitted for the 1991
Eight-Week Summer Session, an
undergraduate app1icant must submit an
app1ication and a11 required documents
to the Office of Admissions by this
date.
An exception from this ru1e wi11 be
granted to non-degree students who
enro11 through the Evening/Weekend
Program, conducted short1y before the
opening of c1asses.
Background and Rationa1e:
At present, there are no fina1 dates by which students must
app1y for admission. Significant numbers of them (in the
hundreds) app1y during the fina1 days before each semester;
some even app1y after the semester has begun. This puts
unnecessary strains on a number of offices--from Admissions to
Advisors and Deans. It cuts down on the possibi1ity of
affording efficient services to this group of students, most of
whom are readmitted students and a11 of whom are
procrastinators--groups often particu1ar1y in need of
advising. Last moment admission robs students of the time
necessary for good advising and dooms them to taking on1y those
courses 1eft open at that 1ate date.
The proposed dates are in general only about three weeks before
the beginning of term, so they will not forbid any serious
students from applying, especially since these dates are much
later than the cutoff dates at most bench mark institutions.
The Admissions Office needs quick action on this matter so that
the dates, once established, can be disseminated as widely and
as soon as possible. Admissions will concentrate on passing
information about the deadlines to the university community and
to the state's high schools. However, it does seem likely
that, until students become accustomed to this system, there
will be some reduction in the number of students readmitted.
But the deadlines are so liberal and so necessary that we are
enthusiastic in our recommendation of passage of these dates.
The Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards recommends
setting the deadlines at or before l5 working days before the
begining of each term. For conformity, all deadlines fall on
the lst or 15th of each month. The logic is simply to provide
a handle by which to make the deadline dates more memorable.
The proposed deadlines were recommended by the Admissions
Office and endorsed by the Senate's 29.222 Committee on
Admissions Review.
Implementation Date: Immediately.
The Chair asked for any business that needed to be brought to the Senate.
Professor Jonathan Glixon (Fine Arts) recommended that the Senators urge
their colleagues to write a letter this week to the Governor indicating UK's
concern about losing President Roselle. He felt it might be a good idea to
write a letter and have several people sign it. The Chair felt that was an
excellent suggestion. He stated that the legislators have said the letters
are important.
Professor James Applegate (Communications) spoke on behalf of the Senate
Council. He stated that he had learned a lot from serving on the Senate
Council and that the Senate should feel very good about the leadership they
have been getting from the Chairmen of the Council such as Wilbur Frye, Bill
Lyons, Loys Mather, and Don Leigh. He has watched them operate under
difficult situations with legislators, external public, presidents and
breakfasts at 7:30 in the morning. He is deeply appreciative and impressed
with the faculty leadership the Senate has had. He felt the Senate Council is
fortunate to have them and the work they do.
On behalf of the Senate, Chairman Leigh thanked Jim Applegate for his
service on the Senate Council. He stated that Professor Applegate served in a
very enthusiastic and contributive member of the Council. Professor Applegate
was given a round of applause.
There being no further business, the meeting adjou d at 3:28 p.m.
' 44M
Ra dall H. Da
Secretary, University Senate