xt7mw669698v https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7mw669698v/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1979-04-30  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, April 30, 1979 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 30, 1979 1979 1979-04-30 2020 true xt7mw669698v section xt7mw669698v UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

April 23, 1979

Members , University Senate

The University Senate will meet in called session on Monday,
pril 30,1979 at 3:00 P. M. in the Classroom Building, Room 118.

PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN MEETING PLACE.

AGENDA:

1) ‘ Minutes: April 9, 1979.
Chairman’s Remarks
Ombudsman Report: Professor Jane Emanuel.
Action Items:
a) Proposal to establish Academic Disciplinary Policies:
College of Dentistry (circulated under date of March 26,
1979).
b) For acceptance: University Senate Research Committee
Report (circulated under date of March 27, 1979). For
approval: Recommendations from University Senate Research

Committee (circulated under date of April 17, 1979).

c) Proposed Rule change: Section V1, 1.1 and l. 2 (circulated
under date of April 3, 1979)..

d) Preposed Rule change: Section 1, 4.1.12 (circulated under
date of April 2, 1979).

e) Withdrawal Policy: see attached.

Elbert W. Ocke rman
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

April 23, 1979

Members , University Senate

Joseph A. Bryant, .Ir., Chairman

Withdrawal Policy

Background:

At its last meeting the Senate voted to divide the items
in the Senate Council’s proposal for revision of the Senate Rules
regarding withdrawal policy and to consider those proposals
with reference to the two rules (V, 1. 8.1, and V, l. 8. 2). As
you will recall the Senate voted to change Senate Rule V, 1. 8.1.
That action stands, but neither this action nor any action the
Senate may take on V, l. 8. 2 may be implemented before January
1, 1980.

There remains for consideration the Senate Council's pro-
posal regarding changes in Senate Rules V, 1. 8. 2. The present
rule reads as follows:

V l. 8. 2 A student may withdraw from a class during the
last half of the term upon approval of a petition
certifying urgent reasons including but not
limited to:

I. Illness or injury of the student;

II. Serious personal or family problems;

III. Financial inability to continue at the University, or;
IV. Call to military service.

Such petition should be recommended by the student's
advisor and instructor and must be approved by the
dean of the student‘s college. The instructor must
assign an appropriate grade (see 1. 3 of this Section)
or a grade of P or W may be assigned by the Univer—
sity Appeals Board (see Section VI 5.1.1b).

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2
Senate Agenda Item: Withdrawal Policy
April 23, 1979

The proposed change is as follows:

During the last half of a course a student may not
withdraw without receiving an earned grade, which
his instructor will assign, except that for urgent
reasons approved by the dean he .may withdraw with
a ”W/P" or a ”W/F.” (Neither the W/P nor the
W/F will be calculated in the student's GPA; these
marks, like the "W," are for information only.)

Note: If approved, the proposed changes will be forwarded to the
Rules Committee for codification.

The proposed change is, of course, open to amendment by the
Senate, but the Council requests that anyone planning to propose an
amendment be prepared to submit his proposal in writing.

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 30, I979

The University Senate met in called session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 30, 1979,
in Room 118 of the Classroom Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Joanne Bell, Janis L.
Bellack*, John J. Bernardo*, Mark Birkebak, Brack A. Bivins, A. Edward Blackhurst*, Jack
C. Blanton, Thomas W. Brehm*, Kenneth Brooks, Jerry Brown, Judy Brown, Joseph T. Burch,
Joe B. Buttram*, W. Merle Carter*, S. K. Chan*, Donald B. Clapp, Kenneth M. Coleman,
Clinton Collins*, Frank Colton, Samuel F. Conti, Paul Davis, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W.
Denemark, David E. Denton, Ronald C. Dillehay, Marcus L. Dillon*, Joseph M. Dougherty,
Anthony Eardley, W. W. Ecton*, William D. Ehmann*, Joseph Engelberg, Richard A. Etlin*,
Wilbur W. Frye, Art Gallaher*, John H. Garvey, Jon P. Gockerman*, Abner Golden*, Merlin
Hackbart*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Virgil W. Hays*, Raymond R. Hornback, Charles
W. Hultman*, David Hurst, Clyde L. Irwin, Malcolm E. Jewell, Wesley H. Jones, Edward J.
Kifer*, James A. Knoblett*, Stephen Langston, Donald C. Leigh, Thomas P. Lewis, Arthur
Lieber*, Steve Locke, William L. Matthews*, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Marion E. McKenna*,
Phillip W. Miller*, Catherine Morsink*, Philip J. Noffsinger, David Peck*, Alan R. Perreiah,
Deborah E. Powell*, Kim Ratcliff, Robert W. Rudd*, William Ruf, Ramona Rush, Pritam S.
Sabharwal, Patrick J. Sammon*, Mike Schutte, Robert G. Schwemm, D. Milton Shuffett*,

Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith, Tim Smith*, Wade C. Smith*, Lynn Spruill*, Terry
Squires, Louis J. Swift*, Gene Tichenor, Leonard Tipton, Rodney Tulloch*, M. Stanley Wall,
Marc J. Wallace*, Constance P. Wilson*, H. David Wilson*, Fred W. Zechman*

The minutes of the meeting of April 9, 1979, were approved as circulated with the
exception of amending a Student Senator's remarks on page four by adding the words "the
position that.” The sentence now reads ”...wanted to go on record as being in favor of

the position that if a student were going to drop..."

The Chairman made the following remarks. He said there were several items for
action. Proposal B, he noted, contained both a committee report for acceptance and
a set of proposals to be discussed, approved, or disapproved, and forwarded to the
Administration for appropriate action. The other three were all action items, he said.
The Chairman called the Senators' attention to the fact that the withdrawal policy
was put last with no attempt to delay it. He said that he had a copy of the minutes
from the Student Government meeting in which they strongly urged reconsideration of
the items passed regarding action on the withdrawal policy. The first items were the
ones that needed action before the end of the year; the withdrawal policy could not
be implemented in any case before January 1, 1980. The last item the Chairman pre-
sented was a communication from Professor A. J. Hiatt, Chairman of the Agronomy Depart—
ment, of a Memorial Resolution on the late Professor Charles Eugene Bortner. Chairman
Bryant read the Resolution and directed that it be made a part of these minutes and
that copies be provided to the members of the immediate family. Following Professor
Bryant's presentation of the Resolution, the Senators were asked to stand for a moment
of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Bortner.

7*Absence Explained

 

 MEMORIAL RESOLUTION

Charles Eugene Bortner, 1908—l979

Charles Eugene Bortner, A Research Agronomist with USDA,
Agricultural Research Service and Professor of Agronomy at the
University of Kentucky, died March 23, 1979 at the age of 71.

A native of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, Mr. Bortner came to
Kentucky and received his B.S. Degree in Agriculture in 1930
from the University of Kentucky. He worked for the University
for about a year and then entered the University's Graduate
School where he received an M.S. Degree in Soils in 1933.

From that time until 1948, he worked for the University of
Kentucky conducting studies in soil fertility and mineral nutri—
tion of tobacco. During World War II, he served approximately
four years in the U.S. Army Chemical Corporation. From 1948
until retirement in 1976, he worked under a joint appointment
for the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the University of Kentucky; altogether, 43

years of service for improved production of burley tobacco.
Results of his research contributed to the tripling of yields

of burley tobacco. He was elected twice as Chairman of the
Tobacco Chemists' Research Conference and served several years
on the Editorial Board of Tobacco Science. In addition to his
research accomplishments, he served as senior scientist in the
Federal—State Tobacco Research Programs in Kentucky; and after
USDA's reorganization in 1972, he served as Location Leader

for the ARS group at the Univesity of Kentucky. Through his
many roles as a distinguished professor and scientist, Charlie's
influence has touched all phases of tobacco research at the
University of Kentucky.

He was a long—time member of the American Society of
Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, American Association
for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi and Alpha Zeta.

Charles Bortner was a dedicated agricultural researcher, a
true scholar, officer and gentleman for which we express our
gratitude. He is greatly missed by his many friends and
colleagues. We extend our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Bortner,
their two children and three grandchildren.

Chairman Bryant recognized Professor Jane Emanuel for the Academic Ombudsman's
Annual Report of 1978-79.

Professor Emanuel spoke to the Senate as follows:

Chairman Bryant, members of the Senate, and guests, this
past year as Academic Ombudsman has, in truth, been the most
challenging, the most interesting, and the most rewarding of
my professional life at the University of Kentucky. I shall
always be grateful to President Singletary and to this body
for this unique opportunity of service and personal growth.

I am in your debt. At this point I would be remiss if I did

 

 -3—

not publicly acknowledge the invaluable contributions of

Frankie Garrison, my staff assistant. Her efficiency in the
day—to—day operation of the Office of the Academic Ombudsman
is noteworthy, but more importantly her understanding of and
dedication to the objectives of the office are indispensible.

To speak of this past year in terms of numbers and types
of academic issues is to share with you only the shadow, the
silhouette of the reality -— the flesh and bones, the heart
and soul are missing. The students, the faculty, the admin—
istrators represented by these numbers, by these categories,
were real people who were confronted by real problem situations.
However, the confidentiality of the office requires that I
speak in terms of numbers and issues and not in terms of parti—
cular individuals with specific problems.

The following numerical view of the activities of the
office from July 1978 to April 1979 does not include those
casual drop—in visits or telephone calls that requested infor—
mation such as academic deadlines, directions to buildings,
telephone numbers, and names of particular individuals. We
did, however, record some 107 brief cases. By this I mean
that information was taken down; that advice, an interpreta—
tion, or a referral was given; or that a phone call or per-
sonal contact was made on my part. Of these brief cases,
101 originated from students and six came from faculty mem—
bers.

We acted in 134 cases concerning issues of an academic
nature involving students on the one hand and faculty or
administrative staff on the other. In our attempt to aid in
the resolution of these academic problems we have interacted
at some level with every college in the University save one,
the College of Library Science.

Before I give you a college—by—college breakdown, a word
of caution. The number of cases in any one college is more
directly related to the total size of that college than it is
to anything else. And, no where in these calculations is the
seriousness or importance of any one of these problems visible.
The breakdown: Agriculture — 5, Allied Health Professions - 2,
Architecture — 4, Arts and Sciences — 55, Business and Eco—
nomics - 6, Honors Program — 2, Law — 1, Medicine - 1,

Nursing ‘ 1, Pharmacy — l, and Social Professions — 1. In 131
of these cases we were able to reach a resolution which, if
not completely satisfactory to all parties, was at least
understandable and acceptable. We were unable to reach a
satisfactory solution in three instances and these cases were
forwarded without support to the Appeals Board.

As in the past, the majority of the academic problems
centered around grades: mistakes in grading, disagreement
with evaluative judgement of faculty, not understanding grad—
ing scales, no grade turned in to registrar, lack of stated
grading procedures, deviation from stated grading procedures,
mistakes in final grade computation, ”I” grades, and "W"

 

 ‘4—

grades. Other problem areas were cheating, plagiarism,
add/drop procedures, smoking, absence policies, pass—fail
courses, changes in the final exam schedule, contract courses,
destroyed exams, inaccurate or non—existent advisement, regis—
tration, admission to professional programs, curriculum
changes, repeat option, certification of clinical hours,
common exams given outside of class time, academic load and

work load, and the teaching methods of both regular faculty
and teaching assistants.

In an effort to correct or alleviate some of these
academic problem areas, I submit the following recommendations
for your consideration:

1. Circulate the following Senate Policy and Rules
to the faculty at the beginning of each semester.

a. Information About Course Content (Section VI, 1.1)

b. Information About Course Standards (Section VI, 1.2)

c. Final Examinations (Section V, 2.4.6)

d. The No—Smoking Policy adopted December 8, 1975.

Consider a new rule relative to the holding by
faculty of final exams and term papers/projects
for at least one semester after the completion of
a course.

Implement a comprehensive program of training and
supervision to improve teaching by our teaching
assistants.

Strengthen and expand the faculty development
programs which are aimed at the improvement of
teaching by our regular faculty.

Develop more effective ways to prevent and dis-
courage cheating and plagiarism.

Explore ways to better orient our foreign stu-
dents to the academic procedures, requirements,
and expectations of this university.

Consider changing Section VI, 1.1 and 1.2 to
include that the required information about
course content and course standards be given
in writing to students.

Develop a policy to cover common examinations
that are held outside of the regular class
period.

 

 The time that I have spent this past year dealing with
academic problems has not made me cynical or disheartened.
Quite the contrary, it has reaffirmed my belief that we are
basically a strong, healthy academic community. We have a
well defined set of rules, rights, and responsibilites that
for the most part work and work well. This is not to say
that we cannot and should not do better; we can and we should.
Not only the letter, but the spirit and intent of the rules,
rights and responsibilities defined by this University should
be apparent in and govern all of our academic interactions.

Professor Emanuel was given an enthusiastic applause. Chairman Bryant thanked
Professor Emanuel for her remarks and said that the recommendations would be put on
the agenda of the Senate Council.

The Chairman reCognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposal to establish Academic Disciplinary Policies: College of Dentistry. This proposal
had been circulated to members of the University Senate under the date of March 26, 1979.
Professor Reedy brought to the Senators' attention that on page five following the state—
ment "Objective of the Policy” the following statement should be added. ”A student will
be removed from academic probation by the Dean when the terms of probation have been met."
The Chairman asked Dean Packer to answer any questions. The floor was opened for ques—
tions and discussion. The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The motion
passed. It reads as follows:

Background:

Last year the College of Dentistry formulated a set of
academic disciplinary policies and forwarded them to the
Senate Council for approval and inclusion in the Senate Rules.
The Council sent the proposal to the Senate Committee on
Admissions and Academic Standards, which suggested several
modifications. The Senate Council itself has subsequently
made modifications in the proposal. All these have been
accepted by the College of Dentistry. The Council now sub—
mits it to the Senate with a recommendation for approval.

The Proposal:

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number One: Basis for Academic

Discipline

Objective of the Policy: To define the basis for academic
discipline in the Professional Dental Education Program

 

Policy Statement: Disciplinary action for students in the
Professional Dental Education Program will be initiated upon
unsatisfactory academic performance.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: Requests to alter academic disci—
plinary policy will be made in writing to the Academic
Council. (Refer to the Rules of the Faculty, Section III,
6.1.)

 

:‘c 7': 7':

 

 Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Two: Academic Probation

Objective of the Policy: To define academic probation.

 

Policy Statement: A student who fails a course will be
placed on academic probation. If a student is performing
unsatisfactorily in one or more courses, the Academic Perfor—
mance Committee may recommend probation. The duration of
academic probation will be at least one complete semester.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: The Assistant Dean for Student
Affairs will notify the student who is subject to academic
probation and will report this information to the Dean.

The Academic Performance Committee will recommend the terms
of probation. The terms of the academic probation will be
stated in a letter from the Dean.

 

7‘:*:’<

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Three: Academic

Suspension

Objective of the Policy: To define academic suspension.

 

Policy Statement: A student will be suspended from the College
of Dentistry if the student:

1) fails to meet the terms of academic probation,

2) is placed on academic probation for a second time,

3) has been in residence in a dental curriculum for
five academic years and has not been graduated,

4) has been admitted with advanced standing and has not
been graduated within one year following the end
of the time period agreed to upon admission,

5) fails two or more courses during an academic year.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: The Assistant Dean for Student
Affairs will notify the student who is subject to academic
suspension and will report this information to the Dean.
The Dean may place a student on academic probation instead
of suspension if the individual case justifies it.

 

7': 7': 7':

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Four: Procedures for
Consideration of Academic Suspension

 

Objective of the Policy: To define the review process in
consideration of academic suspension.

 

 

 Policy Statement: A student who is subject to academic
suspension may request a review.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: The procedures for the review of
academic suspension will include the following:

1) A review will be held if requested by the student
subject to suspension. This request must be in
writing and received by the Dean within five (5)
school days of notification of suspension.

The student shall state the basis of the request for
review.

The Dean will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee of faculty,
with a student representative, to review the case.

A student for whom a review has been scheduled:

a) will be allowed to inspect any records relevant to
the suspension procedure.

b) will be entitled to choose a member of the faculty
and a classmate to be present at the review.

c) will have the right to hear and question any
witnesses.

d) will be given the opportunity to present the
basis for requesting a review.

The minutes and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee
will be forwarded to the Dean.

The Dean will meet with the student to review the
recommendations and solicit comments.

The decision of the Dean is final for the College.

7'<>‘<7'<

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Five: Participation in
Curricular Privileges or Extracurricular Activities
while on Academic Probation

Object of the Policy: To define curricular and extracurricular
restrictions for students on academic probation.

Policy Statement: A student who is on academic probation will
be excluded from participation in curricular privileges or
extracurricular activities of the College of Dentistry.
Curricular and extracurricular exclusions consist of:

1) taking enrichment courses except as described in
Curriculum Policy Number Eleven.

 

 _8_

beginning a totally self—instructional course before the
official starting date unless this course is part of
a special curriculum developed by the Academic Perfor—
mance Committee.

serving as an officer or committee member of any College
of Dentistry organization or committee.

participating in any College of Dentistry extracurricular
activity or in the activity of any College of Dentistry
organization if the participation involves the expendi—
ture of an appreciable amount of time.

Participation in these activities will be considered a viola-
tion of the terms of probation.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: The Dean will include these restric-
tions in the terms of probation.

 

- J.
7'“ 4\

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Six: Removal from
Academic Probation

Objective of the Policy: To define the conditions for removing
a student from academic probation. A student will be removed
from academic probation by the Dean when the terms of probation
have been met.

 

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: When a student has met the terms of
probation, the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will report
the student's name to the Dean.

 

*7'<*

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Seven: Reinstatement
Following Academic Suspension

 

Objective of the Policy: To define the process for reinstate-
ment following academic suspension.

 

Policy Statement: A student on academic suspension may apply
for reinstatement under probation. The reinstatement may

not become effective until at least one complete semester has
passed from the time of suspension.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: A student may be considered for
reinstatement upon submission of a written request to the
Dean who shall make a decision. Upon reinstatement by the
Dean, the student will be placed on academic probation, the
terms of which will be recommended by the Academic Performance
Committee.

 

 

 Grade Review Policy

Objective of the Policy: To define the process for student
grade review.

 

Policy Statement: A student has the right to request and
receive a grade review.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: A student before requesting a grade
review, will attempt to resolve the issues with the Course
Director and the Department Chairman.

 

1) Should this meeting fail to resolve the issue, the
student may submit a written request (which should in—
clude the basis for the grade review) to the Assistant
Dean for Student Affairs for the formation of a Grade
Review Committee.

The Grade Review Committee will consist of five (5) voting
members (four faculty and one student) appointed by the
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs. The Assistant Dean
for Student Affairs will appoint the Chairperson of the
Committee. The student requesting the grade review is
entitled to disqualify, without cause, a total of two (2)
of the five (5) voting members. The replacements will be
chosen to maintain the composition as described previously.

The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will designate the
time and place for the meeting and assure that the issue
is resolved within thirty (30) days of the formation of
the Committee. The student, the advisory, the department
chairperson, the course director, and any other persons
having information relevant to the case in question will
be requested to attend the meeting, at which time the
situation will be fully discussed by all parties concerned.
Following this open discussion, the Committee will make

a recommendation to the department chairperson and the
course director involved. The Committee will not have the
prerogative of changing the grade.

In situations in which a failing grade subjects the student
to possible suspension, the grade review shall become

the responsibility of the Ad Hoc Review Committee consider-
ing suspension.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, moved acceptance
of the University Senate Research Committee Report. This report had been circulated to
members of the University Senate under the date of March 27, 1979. The motion to accept
the report passed. Professor Reedy recommended approval of the Recommendations from
the University Senate Research Committee. These recommendations had been circulated to
members of the University Senate under the date of April 17, 1979.

 

 The Chairman said that the recommendations in their original form constituted part
of the report. The Senate Council at its last meeting agreed to approve them after
making certain modifications. The Chairman asked Professor Eichhorn, Chairman of the
Committee, to speak about the proposal as a whole.

Professor Eichhorn spoke to the Senate as follows:

There are seven items before the Senate, which are a result
of the Committee's deliberations over the year. The Research
Committee had a rather vague charge. They took advantage of
the fact and looked at the state of research at the University.
The University of Kentucky is forty—fifth in total Federal
Obligations. We are better in this regard than any other
institution in the state, but we are not as good as others in
nearby states.

We perceive a number of problems at the University in
terms of research. We perceive a lack of University-wide fo-
cus on research, lack of visibility for research, and faculty
concern for the status of research.

All these things make it hard to recruit the best staff
and hard to retain the good ones we do have. There are a
number of things we could do to improve the situation. We could
proclaim research to have a co-equal mission with the pedagogy.
We would like to see research priorities placed upfront. We
have no quarrel with teaching, research and service as a tri-
angle. But, we feel research has taken a step back. We think

that scholarship should be reestablished as a significant
criteria for tenure. We think that individuals given tenure
should excel in research just as we expect them to excel in
teaching. We think that a sincere desire for excellence in
teaching and research should be a criteria for tenure. We think
there should be some improvement in the publicity of scholarship.

We suggest that another look be taken at the distribution
of effort. We also suggest that the University consider es—
tablishing a Research Title Series and improve the general
focus on research. We suggest the formation of a cabinet level
position for Research Administration. There are seven recom-
mendations. I will respond to any question you may have.

The Chairman said that in the interest of orderliness it might be well to take the
recommendations one at a time, but asked for any general questions. A Senator asked if
the recommendations could be considered individually as separate motions. He said there
were some he supported and others he opposed. The Chairman said that was the plan recom—
mended by the Council.

Professor Krislov spoke to the Senate as follows:

I think it might be useful to have a critical View of the
entire proposal. That way both the positive and negative side
would be presented. The most cogent comment I have heard about
this from an unnamed person is that if we could find some way
to take the money we are going to spend in implementing the

 

 -11-

seven items and distribute it directly to the people who are
doing research, the University would be much better off. That
is the great fear I have with this proposal. First, we are
committing ourselves to spending a huge amount of money with
dubious results. We are proposing to hire people who are
presumably better than we are at research and keep them without
tenure. Personally, I find that very unfair. Such a proposal
would guarantee that we would lose good people and keep the
mediocre. Secondly, I find it very difficult to understand
what a Vice President of Research will do. Some of the re-
search is decided by Congress, State Legislators and
administrators and some of them are brazen enough to tell us
what the results should be. I don't see how the creation of

a Vice President could help us procedurally or substantively.
Third, there are very dubious expenditures such as a multi-
disciplinary research bulletin, monograph series, and faculty
handbook on research. The net result of all this is that

I don't know what the result will be, but I do know we will
exspend enormous amounts of money. Let me point out that by
any test I doubt if anybody will say that research has not
been the area that we have made our most impressive result.

Professor Skelland said that he had a catalog of complaints about the report and
Professor Krislov had given him a new list. He added that Professor Krislov was wrong
in saying that a Vice President for Research was not needed, and he spoke in favor of
having a Vice President for Research. He said that the University needed to increase the
output of published research. He suggested getting students' masters and Ph.D.
theses published.

Professor Charles F. Knapp from Mechanical Engineering made the following remarks:

I represent, today, faculty members and research associates
of the Wenner-Gren Laboratory who strongly recommend positive
action on the proposal outlined in the Senate Research Committee
Report.

We view the recommendations as a crucial step in reversing
the declining morale among many faculty members who do research
at this University. The environment which these faculty mem—
bers find themselves in today is counterproductive to quality
research and, as a consequence of their frustration, jeopardizes
the quality of teaching as well.

In an era of increasing competition for declining research
dollars, increasing federal and state regulation, and increasing
requirements for research as an important consideration for
promotion, the University administration must recognize its res-
ponsibility to create and administer an environment which stream—
lines the research process. The creation of a cabinet level
administrative unit for research will provide effective repre-
sentation of University research needs with funding agencies and
federal and state governments. Equally pressing, is the urgent
need for an administrative unit whose primary charge is to
coordinate research throughout the campus, and produce much
needed changes in the daily conducts of research. Individual
faculty members are spending entirely too much time trying to

 

 -12-

identify the pathways for administrative approval for particular
research situations with the all too often heard phrase ”It can't
be done." We are wasting the research talents of our faculty.

We must streamline our research support activities, such as
coordinating interdisciplinary efforts, purchasing for research
purposes and personnel policies affecting research staff.

The recommendations of the University Senate Research
Committee are realistic and necessary for the support of a top
quality research program. It is essential that these recommenda—
tions be enacted