xt7mkk94bn93 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7mkk94bn93/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1983-12-05  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 5, 1983 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 5, 1983 1983 1983-12-05 2020 true xt7mkk94bn93 section xt7mkk94bn93 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

November 28, 1983

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 5,
1983 in the Classroom Building, 106. PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN
DATE OF THE MEETING.

Minutes of 14 November meeting.

Resolutions.
Announcements.

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section VI., 1.3 regarding
Academic Evaluation. (Circulated under date of November 22, 1983)

 

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V., 2.2.3, admis—
sion standards, College of Education. (Circulated under date of
November 23, 1983)

 

 

Statistical Services for Faculty Research. A presentation for discussion
by Dr. Josrph Gani, Chairman of the Department of Statistics, and Dr.
Richard Kryscio, Director of Consulting Services.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 5, I983

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, December 5,
l983, in Room l06 of the Classroom Building. The meeting was originally scheduled
for Monday, December l2. Due to final examination conflicts, the meeting was re—
scheduled.

E. Douglas Rees, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: R. A. Altenkirch*, Ann Amerson*, Roger B. Anderson, James
Applegate*, James Bader*, Michael Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, Susan M. Belmore*, Jack C.
Blanton, Peter P. Bosomworth*, David Bradford*, Thomas W. Brehm*, James Buckholtz,
Joseph T. Burch, Ellen Burnett, Gary L. Cromwell, Philip Dare, Deepak Dhawan*, Donald
F. Diedrich*, Gadis J. Dillon*, Richard C. Domek*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye,
Anthony Eardley, William Ecton*, Charles Ellinger, Charles F. Fay, Richard W. Furst;
Art Gallaher, Jr.*, Lester Goldstein, Charles P. Graves*, C. Michael Gray, Andrew J.
Grimes, Robert D. Guthrie, Joseph Hamburg, Marilyn D. Hamann*, Jesse G. Harris*,

S. Z. Hasan, Penny Heaton, Robert Hemenway*, Brad Hobbs, Raymond R. Hornback, Donald
W. Ivey*, John J. Just, Richard I. Kermode*, Theodore A. Kotchen*, Gurcharan Laumas,
Robert Lawson, B. J. Leon*, Julie Lien*, Thomas Lillich, William E. Lyons, Edgar
Maddox, Kenneth E. Marino*, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Mike McCauley, Marion McKenna*,
Mary Beth Messmer, H. Brinton Milward*, Jeff Moneypenny, William G. Moody*, Harold
Nally, Daniel N. Nelson*, Robert C. Nobel*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Clayton Omvig*,
Merrill Packer*, David C. Payne*, Alan R. Perreiah, David J. Prior, Madhira Ram*,
John A. Rea, Gerald A. Rosenthal, Wimberly Royster, Charles Sachatello*, Edgar Sagan,
Timothy Sineath*, Otis A. Singletary*, Harry A. Smith, John T. Smith, Stanford L.
Smith, Phil Taylor, Kenneth Tompson, Marc J. Wallace*, David Webster*, O'Neil Weeks,
Paul A. Willis, Alfred D. Winer, Robert G. Zumwinkle .

The Minutes of the Meeting of September l2, l983, were approved as circulated.
The Chairman made the following announcements:

”On Tuesday, December l3 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in
the King Alumni House will be the annual party for the
Senate and the Board of Trustees. President Singletary
will also be there. Spouses are invited, and we hope all
of you can come.

The Committee on Organization and Structure, chaired
by Professor Applegate, is beginning to broach some of
the academic issues which would be involved were the
University of Kentucky and University of Louisville to be
brought in some form under a common governing board. I
think the main concern is that the discussions, if they
start, will involve faculty.

As mentioned before, there are two especially im-
portant committee reports which came in last spring. One
was the committee chaired by Professor Lowery which dealt
with financial exigency and another by Professor Hiatt which
dealt with academic priorities. The Senate Council spent
a good deal of time discussing these reports. One out-
growth which I would like to apprise you of is the assem-
bling of a joint faculty and administrative officer
committee to look into what is called alternative profes-

 

 sional options for faculty. There will be four faculty
members appointed by the Senate Council and there

will be four administrative officers appointed by the
President. The President has asked that we indicate to
him the type of administrative areas that we would like
to have covered. Our appointments will be taken up at
the Senate Council meeting this Wednesday, and we will
forward also to the President our feelings as to what
type of administrative officers should be on that
committee.

The Senate Council has been meeting with the chair—
men of the various Senate Committees and in some cases
with the entire committees. The point of this is to
facilitate communication between the Senate Council and
the committees.

Are there any questions any of you might have about
what the Senate Council has been doing this year?“

In response to Chairman Rees' question, Professor Neil asked about a joint board
for the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky. Professor Rees res-
ponded that the papers had been reporting about the possible positioning of the two
universities under a common board. He said that faculty at the University of Louis—
ville seemed to feel that discussion on this matter was more advanced than we do.
Chairman Rees thought it was important to have faculty input into discussions on this
matter and that would be addressed by the committee on Organization and Structure.
Professor Neil‘s second question concerned the Committee on Alternate Professional
Employment and asked if it dealt with the situation of exigency. Professor Rees'
response was that basically the Council felt that probably there would not be any
acute exigency but there could be a long firm readjustment of resources including
faculty assignments within the University. The Council felt the Senate should be
informed on alternative approaches. Also, the Senate Council felt that the Adminis—
tration should be jointly involved in exploring possibilities. It was proposed that
a joint committee be formed with eight members from the faculty and administration.
They would report to the Senate Council and the President.

Chairman Rees asked if there were any problems that the senators felt the Senate
. Council should be addressing. There were no questions or comments.

The first action item was the proposed change regarding Academic Evaluation.
The Chairman recognized Professor Robert Bostrom. On behalf of the Senate Council,
Professor Bostrom recommended approval in the University Senate Rules, Section VI,
l.3, Academic Evaluation. Professor Bostrom said the proposal extended the fair
and just evaluation principle from courses to entire programs. This proposed change
was circulated to members of the senate under date of November 22, l983.

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Gesund suggested
an editorial change on the second page under ”C” in the last two lines to delete
the word “outside“ and add ”or program requirements“ at the end of the sentence.
There were no objections. The sentence then reads:

'....and political affiliation, or any activities outside the
classroom that are unrelated to the course work or program
requirements.“

 

 -3-

The Chairman said the question had also been raised about departmental qualifying
examinations. There was a suggestion that departmental be deleted. There was no
disagreement, and the Chairman ruled that would also be an editorial change.

Professor Neil moved an amendment to change the word “sex“ to ”gender” and that in
the first paragraph ”C” to delete ”or“ and add “any type of sexual behavior or
harassment.” The sentence would read:

”...and political affiliation, any activities outside the class-
room that are unrelated to the course work or program requirements,
or any type of sexual behavior or harassment.“

Professor Gesund seconded the motion to amend. After debate the senate defeated
the amendment to change the wording in the proposal.

The senate voted in favor of stopping debate on the second part of the amendment,
and the.motion to amend failed.

The proposal, as editorially amended, passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposal:

VI. l.3 Academic Evaluation .
al Students have the right to receive grades based
only upon fair and just evaluation of their performance
in a course as measured by the standards announced by
their instructor(s) at the first or second class meet-
ing.

b) Students have the right to receive a fair and just
academic evaluation of their performance in a program.
In addition to the students' overall academic record,
evaluation may include the assessment of such activities
as research and/or laboratory performance, qualifying
examinations, professional board examinations, studio
work or performance activities, behavior in professional
situation, or interviews to determine continuation in

a program. The program faculty and/or relevant admin—
istrative officer must inform the student as to which
activities will be included in the academic assessment
no later than the beginning of the activity to be eval—
uated.

c) Evaluations determined by anything other than a

good faith judgment based on explicit statements of the
above standards are improper. Among irrelevant consid-
erations are race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
and political affiliations, or any activities outside
the classroom that are unrelated to the course work or
program requirements.

One form of sex discrimination is sexual harassment.
It is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests
for sexual favors, or other verbal and physical con-
duct or written communications of an intimidating,

 

 -4-

hostile, or offensive sexual nature, when submission
to such conduct is made either explicitly or im—
plicitly a term or condition of the student's status
in a course, program, or activity, as a basis for
academic or other decisibns affecting such student,
or substantially interferes with a student's academic
performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working or academic environment.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, l984.

The second action item concerned the Admission Standards from the College of
Education. Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom for a motion from the
Senate Council. Professor Bostrom, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved the proposed
change in University Senate Rules, IV., 2.2.3, Admission Standards, College of Educa—
tion. Professor Bostrom said the proposal simply brought the College of Education
into conformity with recent state regulations. This proposed change was circulated
to members of the senate under date of November 23, l983.

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Gesund said he
had trouble with the English in the sixth line of the proposal and wanted to know
who would be doing the interviews and what was the program faculty doing with the in—
terviews. Chairman Rees responded that for admission into certain programs interviews
were required by the departmental faculty.

Chairman Rees recognized Dean Barnard. Professor Barnard said interviews were
conducted by the committees of the program faculties and reviewed by the program
faculties. Chairman Rees asked Professor Gesund if he would be willing for the
Rules Committee to codify and make the necessary writing changes. Professor Gesund
agreed.

Professor Neil asked about numbers four and seven. Professor Barnard said what
was intended was a commitment to the profession based on the realistic understanding
of employment conditions and demands. He said many people were coming to the College
of Education who had no notion of what the supply and demand in education was today.
”They think they are going to be able to go out and get a job,” he said. He felt it
was an obligation of the college to let the students understand that is not the case.
Also, many students thought teachers worked from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The purpose
was to help students to have a realistic understanding of what is expected of them.
Number seven was an effort to try to help the College of Education to discuss with
the students their willingness to provide an adequate education for all children,
even the slow learners.

Professor Neil suggested both points be put into the Advisor's Guide rather
than the University Senate Rules. Professor Barnard said they were part of the state
law.

 

The previous question was moved and passed. The motion, which carried unani—
mously, reads as follows:

Proposal:

IV., 2.2.3 College of Education
A student must apply and be admitted to a Teacher
Education Program in order to receive a teaching
certificate. Applications are accepted for review

 

 

 -5-

by the Program Faculty from students who have com-
pleted, or will complete during the semester in
which they apply, sixty semester hours of work,
which must include EDP 202 completed with a grade
of C or better. Program Faculties shall review
applications and interviews, which shall be required
of all students admitted, and recommend to the Dean
of the College that an applicant be accepted, ac—
cepted provisionally, or rejected. A student's
education advisor, academic advisor, and the Ad—
mission Coordinator also may make recommendations
concerning the disposition of an application. In-
formation considered during the review process shall
include but not be limited to an applicant's

l. total academic record. A minimum, overall grade'
point average 2.0 is required for admission.

performance on required tests of skills in
written and oral communication, reading, and
mathematics. A demonstrated skill level equal
to or greater than the minimum, acceptable level
mandated by the State Department or Education is
required for admission.

record of preprofessional curricula experiences.

commitment to the profession based on a realistic
understanding of employment conditions and demands.

proficiency in human relation skills.

recommendations from at least three persons
familiar with the student's qualifications.

willingness to help provide an adequate education
for children and youth.

Rationale:

The statement proposed here would replace the present statement in
Senate Rules IV., 2.2.3 concerning admission to the Teacher Educa-
tion program in the College of Education. The proposal brings the
statement into conformity with recent state regulations and other-
wise updates requirements for admission into the program.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, l984.

The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary

 

 LHMVERSHW OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

October 27, 1983

MEMORANDUM

Joe Burch, Dean of Students

Brad Canon, Chairman of Senate Rules Committee
Bill Lacy, Past Ombudsman

Jean Pival, Past Ombudsman

Douglas Rees, Chairman”EjZ:\

As each of you know, the Senate Council is preparing a proposed change
in Senate Rules VI., 1.3 which pertains to academic evaluations. The enclosed
draft was circulated to the Senate Council members, academic deans, and recent
ombudsmen, then discussed again in the Senate Council. Problems with respect
to clarity and substance remain. Therefore, I am asking each of you to read
this draft and to propose changes in wording and substance.

Section VI., 1.3 constitutes one of the most important parts of the
Senate Rules and additions are needed. To expedite Senate discussion and ac—
tion, the proposal submitted to the Senate must be in good order. The goal
of this ad hgg_committee (which I will chair) is to put it in good order.

In about two weeks, I will call each of you so that we can arrange a
meeting. Please assess this draft by then and have your recommendations
ready. No more than one meeting should be necessary——but you never know! If
there are any questions, please call me at 7—5871 or 7—5872.

Many thanks for your willingness to contribute to this important
matter.

/cet

Enclosure—1

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Rule:

Academic Evaluation

Students have the right to receive grades based only upon fair and

just evaluation of their performance in a course as measured by

the standards announced by their instructors at the first or second
class meeting. Grades determined by anything other than their in—
structor's good faith judgment based on such standards are improper.
Among irrelevant considerations are race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, political affiliation, or activities outside the
classroom that are unrelated to the course work.

One form of sex discrimination is sexual harassment. It is defined

as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other

verbal and physical conduct or written communications of an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive sexual nature, when submission to such conduct is
made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of the student's
status in a course, program, or activity, as a basis for academic or
other decisions affecting such student, or substantially interferes with
a student's academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile,

or offensive working or academic environment. (US: 3.21.83)

Proposed Rule:

V1 1.3

Academic Evaluation

a) Students have the right to receive grades based only upon fair and
just evaluation of their performance in a course as measured by the
standards announced by their instructor(s) at the first or second class
meeting.

b) Academic evaluation of a student's performance may include a wider
range of activities (”in addition to those in the usual discussion set—
ting”?) such as research and/or laboratory performance, departmental
qualifying examinations, professional board examinations, studio work
or performance activities, and behavior in professional situations.
(”total academic record"; "student's overall academic record”?) The
instructor(s) must inform the student, as in a) above, that performance
will be evaluated in each of these activities which apply.

c) Evaluations determined by anything other than a good faith judgment
based on explicit statements of the above standards are improper.

Among irrelevant considerations are race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, and political affiliation, or any activities outside the class—
room that are unrelated to the course work.

One form of sex discrimination is sexual harassment. It is defined as
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal
and physical conduct or written communications of an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive sexual nature, when submission to such conduct is
made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of the student's
status in a course, program, or activity, as a basis for academic or
other decisions affecting such student, or Substantially interferes with
a student's academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile,

or offensive working or academic environment.

 

 A

UhHVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

November 22, 1983

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, December 5, 1983.

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section VI, 1.3,
Academic Evaluation.

 

Background:

Currently, Section VI., 1.3 of the Senate rules, covering the academic evalua—
tion of students, addresses course performance only. However, academic evalua—
tion of a student's performance in programs and in professional colleges fre—
quently is based on activities beyond or other than those in the usual class—
room situation. At the 11 April 1983 Senate meeting it was proposed that this
Section be revised to include the other types of activities. The effect of the
proposal on professional programs, however, seemed uncertain and the Senate re-
ferred the proposal back for further study.

An ad hoc committee of Senate Council members (Grimes, Rees, Yeh) considered

and prepared a revised version of the proposal which was sent to all academic
deans, present and recent ombudsman, and others for review and comments. Several
helpful suggestions were offered but no opposition was expressed. The present
proposal is based on that revised version which was further refined after addi-
tional discussion with the ombudsmen, the Senate Rules Committee chairman, the
Dean of Students and the Senate Council.

Present Rule:

VI. 1.3 Academic Evaluation
Students have the right to receive grades based only upon fair and
just evaluations of their performance in a course as measured by the
standards announced by their instructors at the first or second class
meeting. Grades determined by anything other than their instructors'
good faith judgment based on such standards are improper. Among ir—
relevant considerations are race, color, religion, sex, national ori—
gin, political affiliation, or activities outside the classroom that
are unrelated to the course work.

One form of sex discrimination is sexual harassment. It is defined

as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other
verbal and physical conduct or written communication of an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive nature, when submission to such conduct is made
either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of the student's
status in a course, program, or activity, as a basis for academic or
other decisions affecting such student, or substantially interferes
with a student's academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hos—
tile, or offensive working or academic environment. (US: 4/11/83)

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2 _
Senate Agenda Item: USR, V1,, 1.3
November 22, 1983

Proposed Rule:

VI. 1.3 Academic Evaluation

a) Students have the right to receive grades based only upon fair and
just evaluation of their performance in a course as measured by the
standards announced by their instructor(s) at the first or second class
meeting.

b) Students have the right to receive a fair and just academic evaluation
of their performance in a program. In addition to the students' overall
academic record, evaluation may include the assessment of such activities
as research and/or laboratory performance, departmental qualifying examina—
tions, professional board examinations, studio work or performance activi—
ties, behavior in professional situations, or interviews to determine
continuation in a program. The program faculty and/or relevant adminis—
trative officer must inform the student as to which activities will be in—
cluded in the academic assessment no later than the beginning of the
activity to be evaluated.

c) Evaluations determined by anything other than a good faith judgment
based on explicit statements of the above standards are improper. Among

irrelevant considerations are race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
and political affiliation, or any activities outside the classroom that
are unrelated to the course work.

One form of sex discrimination is sexual harassment. It is defined as
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal
and physical conduct or written communications of an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive sexual nature, when submission to such conduct is
made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of the student's
status in a course, program, or activity, as a basis for academic or
other decisions affecting such student, or substantially interferes with
a student's academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working or academic environment.

:‘c‘k‘k

Rationale:

Evaluation of the academic performance of a student frequently is carried out with
respect to entry or continuation in a program as well as for assigning a course
grade. The present statement in the Senate Rules concerning academic evaluation
addresses only performance in courses and not performance in programs. The pro—
posed revision remedies that shortcoming. If adopted, the revised rule would
legitimize present practices in many programs and would require that evaluations
in the program area must be fair and just as in the case of course evaluation.
Moreover, the proposal specifically designates that achievement in matters such as
research and/or laboratory work, professional board examinations, studio work or
performance activities, interviews, qualifying examinations, behavior in profes—
sional situations and overall academic record falls within the purview of academic

 

 Page 3 ,
Senate Agenda Item: USR, VI., 1.3
November 22, 1983

a

Rationale [continued]
evaluation and consideration——provided the student is adequately forewarned as to
the particular points on which evaluation is to occur.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1984.