xt7zkh0dzm01 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7zkh0dzm01/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1966-11-14 minutes 2004ua061 English Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 14, 1966 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 14, 1966 1966 1966-11-14 2020 true xt7zkh0dzm01 section xt7zkh0dzm01

«———-—:-— ~——.:‘v—:—-:—=—~_‘—:—:W—.‘zl “‘9 ‘
111.11, .1..., . 1. _ “‘ .5

‘ «11:13:-

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER I4, 1966

The University Senate met in regular session at 4: 00 p. m., Monday,
November 14, 1966, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Diachun
presided. Members absent: Jacob H. Adler, Jack N. Baldwin, Charles E.
Barnhart, Barbara Bates, John R. Batt, Wendell E. Beals, John J. Begin, Harold
R. Binkley, Harry M. Bohannan, Thomas D. Brewer, A. J. Brown, Lester Bryant,
Dana G. Card, Cecil C. Carpenter, David B. Clark, Lewis W. Cochran, Jerome E.
Cohn, Emmett R. Costich, Glenwood L. Creech, Marcia Dake, Melvin L. DeFleur,
Wendell C. DeMarcus, Kurt W. Deuschle, Robert M. Drake, Jr., J. H. Drudge,
James M. Edney, Ben A. Eiseman, Herman A. Ellis, Norman H. Franke, Hugh Scott
Fulmer, James E. Funk, Wesley P. Garrigus, Peter Gillis, Arthur C. Glasser,

J. W. Greene, Jr., Robert H. Greenlaw, Ward Griffen, Jack Hall, Ellis F. Hartford,
Thomas L. Hayden, Hubert P. Henderson, A. J. Hiatt, John W. Hill, James C.

Humphries, W. M. Insko, Jr., Robert D. Jacobs, Malcolm E. Jewell, Raymon D. Johnsm1,RW

Johnson, Robert F. Kerley, James B. Kincheloe, Donald E. Knapp, Wasley Krogdahl,
Carl F. Lamar, R. A. Lauderdale, Jr., Leslie L. Martin, Herbert F. Massey, Marcus
T. McEllistrem, L. Mae McPhetridge, Alvin L. Morris, R. J. Muelling, Jr., Vernon
A. Musselman, Elbert W. Ockerman*, James R. Ogletree, John W. Oswald, Blaine F.
Parker, J. W. Patterson, Doris P. Pearce, James H. Powell*, James Prestridge,
John E. Reeves, J. T. Reeves, Wimberly C. Royster, Benjamin F. Rush, Ivan Russell,
George W. Schwert, Den—Gaeh—Seaten3 William A. Seay, Doris M. Seward, Roy E.
Sigafus, C. Leland Smith, Wellington B. Stewart, Paul Street, Thomas B. Stroup,
Lawrence Thompson*, Lee H. Townsend, M. Stanley Wall, Daniel L. Weiss, Warren

E. Wheeler, Robert L. White, William R. Willard, W. W. Winternitz, Kenneth Wright*,
Wesley 0. Young, Fred Zechman.

The minutes of October 10, 1966 were approved.

The Chairman presented a request from Mr. Frank Browning, a KERNEL
representative, to be permitted to sit in the meeting and report its proceedings.
The Senate approved the request.

The Chairman reported that pursuant to instructions from the Senate at its
October meeting, a Program Subcommittee of the Senate Council had been establish—
ed and programs for the year had been planned; that the December meeting will
have on the agenda a report by President Oswald of some of the University's major
issues, to be followed by a question and answer session. He stated that the
faculty may mail questions to the President or to any member of the Senate Council
prior to the meeting in addition to questions which may be asked from the floor
of the meeting.

The Chairman urged the faculty to send to the Senate Council any recommenda—
tions they might have of qualified candidates to fill terms which are expiring on
the following standing Senate Committees: Advisory Committee on Community
Colleges, Advisory Committee on University Extension, Honors Program Committee,
Library Committee, and Rules Committee.

Mr. Carson Porter, President of Student Government, was recognized. He
stated that he, together with Mr. Howard Shanker, editor of the proposed teacher-
class evaluation program questionnaire, wished to report the intention of Student
Government concerning this program. Following the report Mr. Shanker recommended
that the University Senate go on record as endorsing the program and accepting
the recommendation that Student Government be permitted to take fifteen minutes
of class time on one specified day in order to distribute the questionnaries to
the students and let them mark them. The Senate approved endorsement of the
program and the allocation of class time as requested.

*Absence explained

\ 4A.,__.‘ —_ A A".

A .A‘/,— —

(
‘ E
1

0rd,
ihnson,Ro
l,

cus

ell,

ght*,

Jor

ncil

da-
:on

er-
ent
ded

[
F
t
|
b?
1

_._______n.

_ “A“, __ A,“

A .—1 ~—— — -‘

‘~ . -, - -Whmmazﬁ?mﬁl€mw5‘33“".433'5‘3

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14 (con't) 2555

Professor Oberst, chairman of the program for the meeting, opened the program
with some brief remarks. He stated that Campus Planning Week, which the Advisory
Committee on Campus Planning had gone to considerable effort to bring to the
faculty, the students, and the staff, had been very disappointing from the stand—
point of attendance by the faculty. He stated that the Committee had been trying
to inform itself for a year or more on various aspects of campus planning, that
it had had a long evening session with the City—County Planning Commission and
the Urban Renewal Commission to discuss planning problems of the University in
the light of planning problems of the city and of urban renewal; and that they
had had a very useful meeting which was attended in spectacular fashion by those
groups.

Professor Oberst said that the Program Committee of the Senate Council had
turned to the academic plan, Beginning a Second Century, in attempting to raise
some issues or problems of planning which might be of interest to the Senate;
that the Committee had taken two of the recommendations, encompassing academic
and physical planning, numbers 13, addressed to the University Senate, and 16,
addressed to the Administration; that the two members of the faculty most identified
with these proposals would speak on their observations and two members of the
Advisory Committee on Planning would speak to the Advisory Committee‘s observations.
Professors Amyx and Axton addressed themselves to the program from the standpoint
of Campus Planning and Professor Schwartz and Gone addressed themselves to the
proposed South Campus. Their remarks follow in that order.

Professor Amyx:

The President's Committee "To Improve the Academic Environment
of the Faculty" was concerned with the whole broad spectrum of faculty
environment and welfare. We foresaw a real impact on the academic
welfare of the faculty in the manner in which the Campus plan was
maturing. There are three paragraphs in our report to the President
which may now be considered "old history”, since we considered the
Campus plan very soon after its announcement and in the light of
its first impact on the faculty. There were some negative comments
which we felt compelled to report, though these may have been based
essentially on misinformation, from the kind of "block plan” which
appeared in the color model in the Courier Journal. We did expect
that there would be a radical change in the campus with a move toward
the ”density" concept of the campus, and there was some concern
about the effect of the proposed office—tower classroom structures.
We suspected that this promised a sacrifice of older, more or less
informal, or "peripatetic" kind of instruction, and we suspected
that some faculty members would regret the loss of intimate student—
faculty relationship which might be involved in smaller college
structures.

There was no one on our committee, and there was an architect
on our committee, who felt that there should be any rejection of
the present campus plan, nor did the committee feel impelled or
competent to suggest specific modifications in the plan. We
wanted to suggest that both planners and faculty pay the closest
possible attention to instructional and academic needs in the
various areas as early as possible, and we suggest that a system
be set up—aa very close consultation on faculty preferences--

directly at the level of the faculty involved.

..
‘ <

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14, 1966 (con't)

__ <7 ~ .4 < -. . A.-.“ .5

As far as I can see that seems to be happening. The appointment

of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Langlois, for example,
to make broadly—based recommendations on the new General Library. This
is early consulation. The planning of the new Fine Arts Building has
gone ahead at what I would call a normal pace against the contingencies
of, let's say, the removal of the stadium. We felt that it ought to

be the goal of the assigned architect, in every case, to escape a kind
of banal institutionalized architecture, and the only way one can do
this is to consult with individual faculty members, not only at the
initial stages of planning, but throughout the stages of planning.

I want to make this as sharp as possible by adding to our report just
one paragraph which I think will make an emphatic note.

The formation of committee such as the new one for the
General Library, I think will be helpful. And it will be
very helpful, in turn, after having decided on the functions,
and the goals, and the quality, and the space needs (and
the student and faculty comforts and relationships) in very
abstract terms, the faculty and the students could see, in
a very concrete way, what the architect proposed to do with
the building. As most artists and architects know, there is
no very great power of visualizing how buildings will look
and will work, even among professionally-oriented people in
a given field. I would hOpe, for example, that every member
of our own Art Department might be able to see and make comments
on drawings or models for the new Fine Arts Building before
the building is actually detailed. No doubt this puts a
considerable burden on the architect. But I believe that this
kind of continuous collaboration is valuable, and that only
in this way does a faculty member have a chance to see the
way in which he proposes that his work be done. What I'm
asking is that the faculty member here be regarded as, in
some sense, a client of the architect.

I regret, Professor Oberst, that I'm not speaking precisely to

Section 16 here. The implications for Section 16 occur in another
part of our report, and only obliquely, where we asked for planning
which would make it possible, especially at the junior and senior
level, for increased contact, at what I call a kind of "apprentice
work" stage, between students and faculty. That kind of thing is
possible only in the context of what I've been talking about here«~

a fairly close collaboration, prior to detailing, between the planning
architect and the faculty member who has the concrete knowledge about
how the situation can and shall work.

Professor‘Axton:

I suppose you might say that what I am chiefly interested in is
something that comes under the general heading of amenities, which
I regard as essentials; that is, we can build and provide for the
.space needs but if we do not also provide for the spiritual needs
and the quality of life to be led in a given state, we have not
done our job.

.1“ wafﬂ” ‘-

--.-§l-W’.’- - A . meaﬁvwﬂi”‘”ﬂﬂ"‘¢"£*’ 73".“

V-........._

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14, 1966 (con't)

This has been one of our chief topics on the President's Advisory , fiéh
r Committee on Building and Campus Development. We were involved last i ? jﬁ
spring in a week-end—long conference with the planners and other staff ‘f 3%
and faculty people on precisely this, as well as other topics. We .1 -
had, I think, a very lively interchange of views at that time. I ” ‘ éizi
have been grousing about the question of what kind of implications ; ‘ gwlﬂ
for faculty—student relationships are going to occur when an lS—story § ‘ ‘
office tower is erected that is separate from a 5,500 student—station :KQ ;y
classroom building. Within the office tower I still have some re— , ‘”
servations about the concept that went into its initial planning.
I still have the feeling that it is more convenient for those people
who are going to be administering the structure than it is for those
who are going to have their offices in it.

\_.ﬁ.‘/§.,——- . V _ .,_

Our principal interest, overall, however, lies in the fact
that, as an advisory committee to the President, we are charged with
\ representing the faculty's opinion and thought on this and other
i matters, and we are very deeply concerned to see that we get from
‘ all of you the kind of critique and commentary that we need in order
I to fulfill our representive functions. We tried with Planning Week
to stimulate faculty, staff, and student participation in what is
called the planning process, that is to say, to get your views and
responses before us for our consideration. In part, this is really
an educative process. A plan, really, is not a three—dimensional
model, and we had hoped that Planning Week, which went on between
October 5 and October 10, would have been more widely attended then
it was. I think perhaps a good many people got around to the exibit
but distressingly few got to our open meetings. I was hoping there
that we might actually talk with some of you. Many comments by
people indicate that a great many don't understand what a master
plan is and what it is not. This is a very widely-held misappre~
hension. When any information about the OfficevTower Classroom
complex is considered newsworthy enough‘ to run a picture, our
campus newspaper, the Lexington newspapers, and the Courier in
Louisville, want the picture that is the little cardboard—scale
model which is about 2% inches high and which really has nothing
whatever to do with what the actual building is going to look like.
The idea, I suppose, is, that a three—dimensional model of a campus
plan really tells what the campus is going to look like ten or
fifteen years hence. This is not the case at all. It is merely
a model of the volume requirement, with some idea of the relation— ‘ m M,
ships between volumes and spaces, and volumes and volumes. So we é 3EﬂjWW.
have a real educative process and as we said during Planning Week i j ,ﬂ?g‘ :
and I hope, will say repeatedly, we on the Committee stand ready 3 h ﬁw;'i
to meet with any faculty groups, organizations, or groupings, to t g {it
pursue this matter further. ;, {ill

a \,s’—-

-—-‘_ .ﬁ7 ﬂ_p— A .i

AA \\

..__‘_,_\- ._. —.~ _l_.g _1,>ﬁp_~,,_.‘_ ﬂ—N‘ .

The second thing we are trying to do in this line—~we are E‘" quHm
considering anyway—~is the development of a very brief brochure, : *1”"
possibly with a tear~out response page to it, which will outline
the subjects of discussion that rolled out of Planning Week, and ;
inform you about them.

.1 “—5. -—-.r,-—ge_,.———:

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14, 1966 (con't)

We feel a very important function can be performed simply by
letting you know that we are in existence and that we look
forward to and encourage your response to be funneled in our
direction. The tear—out response page in the brochure, we hope,
will be used by those of you who are interested in learning more
about the campus development plan; that you will respond to it
and send it in to us so that we can contact you and get together
with you or your group. We think this is essential, and we

plan to use all of our facilities to meet with you during the
next several months as long and as deeply as you feel necessary,
in order, first to understnad what the plan is and is not,

and secondly, on the basis of that understanding, to get your
assessment and evaluation of it. We are also carrying on this
informational function in the Alumni Bulletin in the next issue,
there will be one article on the campus plan from our Committee
and other article, from Bob Kerley's point of view.

In addition to this, we have been discussing, from the point
of view of amenities, and more particularly from the point of
view of the relationships and potential possibilities for contacts
between and among faculty and staff and students, some questions
about the present concept of the essential campus. Principally,
I think our point of view is that the central campus ought to be
a hub of University community life; that perhaps there ought to
be grouped more densely than the present master plan appears to
call for, some of those functions which will bring people to the
hub of the campus in the normal course of their lives. Perhaps
the Student Center, the Faculty Club, the major auditorium,
possibly even a block of retail shops or retail facilities, might
eventually be located there. This is the kind of thing that we
feel needs to belong in the coure or the hub of the campus, and
that utmost attention be paid to providng for the whole spectrum
of spatial provisions that will minister to the different kinds
of relationships that exist between and among faculty, staff,
and students. This might get down to the relatively simple
matter of providing little places where faculty and staff could
stop in for a cup of coffee or a sandwich and where there would
be a table where they could sit down and talk.

I do not know what effect our Committee's existence has had
on the next matter, but the new contract with the Detroit planning
consultant firm of Crane and Gorwic places a very great emphasis
upon the development of a non~academic program analysis and
particularly on the residential, the social, the cultural, and
the recreational programs~~something that we feel particularly
strong about because it is in these areas that the matter of
amenities lies most clearly and directly. We have not yet had
a chance really to have our voice heard early enough in the '

planning process to have any impact upon the design of the residen—~

tial structures. I have a good many reservations about some

aspects of the new dormitory complex that is going up behind the
Medical Center, though certain other of my pet ideas seem to be
incorporated in it.

-' A

ver—

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14, 1966 (con't)

In particular, I am distressed that there is not a more adequate
I provision for study spaces on each floor there. There are two
lounges and I like the idea of breaking down each floor into
( two more or less self—contained units comprising about two dozen
‘ students with their own facilities. But I do believe that if

we are in quest of excellence one of the ways of doing it is to
\ provide for study spaces.
i
I
t
1

In order for our committee to represent the faculty point
of view in the planning process we need to speak with them more
at length and more fully in the coming, year in order to know
what people really need and want. Without this kind of dialogue
between our committee and the faculty we are not qualified to say
what the amenities are. I am not at all sure that what I would
think were amenities for students would be what students would
think were amenities. These are matters that we need to talk
about with people and we hope that this will be simply one more
step in discovering what that quality of life is that you want
your buildings to serve. Thank you.

Professor Schwartz:

The main concern of the South Campus Committee was to consider,
in part, the question: "What physical structure would provide the
best environment to educate the lower division student?" I would
\ first like to summarize the report, and then give my evaluation
I of it as seen from this perspective.

i This report recognizes the dual responsibility of the University

" to foster the growth of individual departments, which can encourage

‘ graduate education and research, and, at the same time, develop
the best possible organization for lower division education. Under

Z the present structure our lower division program may well suffer

( as the University continues to grow. While the big university
commands the resources, both financial and personal, to support

[ a strong graduate and research enterprise, this same bigness hinders

[ the education of the lower division student. He is too frequently
caught in an impersonal, specialized environment at a time when

l he needs meaningful personal relationships centering around broad—

‘ ening intellectual concerns.

The solution to the dilema presented in the committee report
was a modified residential college plan. During the first two
years of his university experience the student would reside and
develop intellectually in a small college environment. Here he
would have significant contact with students with similar academic
concerns and problems, and in a situation more responsive to his
particular needs. He would become a meaningful part of an identi-
fiable academic entity.

partments fostering a vigorous graduate and research program. But

it is also expecting and planning for an enrollment of 9000 lower

[ The University is committed to the development of strong de—
‘ division students by 1975.

l w“. . -_.._», ,, H .,:v.. .. q 1 _..-;, 3,...” ,. .‘.
~ v " y-ngvﬂmagwwmquMMmmmnn.‘gp’ﬂuﬂ mfgqgvkg/"eur. -‘.-.>r"-‘.‘=,f‘-Z Wynn! x,“ T»; ' 3' y e '2' .. E , ‘. _ _ 1 . , H
'- ' ;-f r . e. .. r. —. .' .. -, . .:~.-I. n... 2.4- , .. -,.;',~.- .( , . ,. .‘ 4 , .

< vv— ‘rv‘V-yl‘:;.7“ — U ,: .1“.

“JV—m“? “ﬂ” /

" ‘ ”.11

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14, 1966 (con't)

While the fostering of a strong graduate program demands large size,
disciplinary specialization, the effective education of lower division
students requires an almost opposite structure and campus atmosphere.

Strong undergraduate programs must make provision for at least
4 elements:

1. An academic community of identifiable character

2. An atmosphere promoting individual identity

3. An academic orientation through facilitation of student—faculw
contact focused on broad intellectual interests

4. And a transition from the paternalistic and non—academic high
school atmosphere to the independence and academic orientation
of higher education.

The South Campus report suggested a combination of the worthwhile
elements of the residential college pattern with the strengths of the large
university structure. Although details are to be worked out on entering
the University, the student would enroll in one of the several undergraduate
residential colleges, each composed of about 1500 students. He would be
assigned a room in a residence unit of 250 students, sharing with them
certain common facilities including a distinct library—lounge area and a
common service and academic building. The total complex would constitute the
student's college. The 1500 students would be taught at the college by
about 20 full time and 10 part time faculty, plus graduate students mainly
for Freshman English and language sections. Up to 80% of his freshman class
work and as much as 50% of his sophomore work would be in resident college
instruction. Therefore, by the end of the student's lower division years
he would have had an opportunity to become thoroughly adjusted to the
larger University while still remaining somewhat apart from the main campus
population.

The total University then, would be divided into two adjacent parts.
The central area would house the professional schools and the disciplines,
with their faculties, upper division and graduate students, necessary
laboratories, specialized equipment and research libraries. Immediately
adjacent would be a series of residential colleges serving mainly the
freshman and sophomore student population.

ADVANTAGES

The work of the lower~division residential college would be designed
to promote those elements which should constitute the best type of education-
al experience for lower division students. Some of the advantages of this
kind of program are:

1. allowing for bigness where size means strength in faculty
and specialization and smallness, where desirable, where it
is important for lower-division student growth.

2. provide the new student with a sense of identity with his
own college, so that he is not overwhelmed by non—academic
distractions and problems, and thereby better prepare him
for the intellectual demands of the larger university.

3. eliminate the impersonal, hotel-like atmosphere which
generally characterizes the conventional dormitory.

:ulty

;ion

late

a the

bion-
is

_/\ _.—.,—_.,__ A ,W ‘1_rx

Pu—-/_l .—- A,_._. l._

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14, 1966 (con't)

~ . - 'mwwmww. . -ﬂ’f‘f‘M . ﬁreman-ease as?" it: :- uvewvw-t "av-
_, _ l- -m .7.-. .~_v_~-v .. , ..

4. provide a close integration between the academic
and residential aspects of the college in order that
the intellectual discourse generated in the classroom
and library may be extended beyond them.

5. provide physical facilities more conducive to student—

faculty contact outside the classroom.

6. provide a kind of academic community which would
attract and retain more top quality students.

PROBLEM CONSIDERATIONS

In a relatively lesser category there is (l) the problem of

transportation. Movement back and forth might create some congestion,
would cost a considerable sum over a school year, and more seriously,

could consume time. The time spent in transportation might be a

more serious factor for staff than for students. This is one reason

for the committee recommendation that the hard core of the faculty

would be attached, at least by semester of year, to the South Campus

facility.

(2) The central problem, crucial to the success of such a
plan relates to the University's commitment to the support of the
scholar as a teacher as well as a researcher. The duties of a
teacher—scholar in a lower division program of this kind would
inevitably command such a percentage of a faculty member's time
that this opportunity for research productivity would be reduced.
Unless the University is prepared to indicate by salary, promotion,
travel funds, etc., that it fully values the dedicated performance
of the teacher, the faculty cannot but look upon service on the
South Campus as a personal and professional sacrifice. If a
South Campus faculty became second class citizens in the academic
community, isolated from the main campus professionally and in—
tellectually the total concept would fail. Unless the University
is prepared to make a commitment to teaching without reservation
it will merely be transporting the existing problem to another
area.

FACULTY

The present practice of reward through promotion and merit
increase with regard to teaching falls short of what would be
needed for the development of a truly outstanding faculty in a
residential college. The teacher—scholar, as opposed to the
scholar~teacher, has simply not been fully accepted by the basic
disciplines. Although in the professional areas through the
special-title series there is recognition of non—research positions.
There is no recognized place for the dedicated high quality teacher.
This is not to imply that the University will want to concentrate
its resources on the full time teachers who has no talent or in—
clination toward scholarly productivity. Rather it suggests that,
if we are to serve adequately the 9000 lower division students we
expect by 1975 we must realize the need on the campus for a cadre
to respected teacher—scholars.

..,.;I,._3«‘7,7,.._.2,,‘,,_ ‘,:q.€.l;§-'E.;_u.‘_. ‘3 .‘ new“; -‘ . ~' -' ‘~ - i.‘ .., -,.

Minutes of the University Senate, November 14, 1966 (con't)

m
0
CI)
m

These faculty, active participants in their departments, would see
as their main objective the education of the lower division student.
They would stay abreast of their fields through reading, attendance
at national and regional meetings and summer research. However,
their main concern would be the student. They would also have to
View informal out-of-class student—contact as essential to student
growth and schedule their time accordingly.

During the tenure of a student at the University he would ideally
be intimately associated with two types of professors. Initially he
would spend much of his time with the teacher—scholar who would be
interested mainly in the student's broad intellectual development.
Then following the lower division years the student would, in addition
be exposed in depth to his chosen discipline through association with
an active research scholar in that area. We have reached a point
where the somewhat distinct needs of these two levels of a student's
intellectual maturation must be recognized and techniques developed
to evaluate and reward effective activity in both.

The role of Administration in this system is two—fold. First
it must determine the best procedures for evaluating and rewarding
faculty activity. Second, it must maintain the balance in numbers
of faculty types essential to serve both the lower division-education
and graduate—research obligations, while building a strong University.
Only when this is accomplished will our lower division program be a
distinguished one.

SUMMARY

While the residential college idea is old, the new elements of
the pattern proposed here concern the attempt to reconcile it with,
and build upon, the graduate and more specialized segments of a
larger university. Hopefully this pattern will provide a breakthrough
for lower division education badly needed in a specialist—oriented
and deperSonalized multiversity.‘

:EVALUAT ION

Looking back over this report with the perspective of the year and
a half since it was written I feel that whether or not we build a South
Campus residential college is not the main issue. There are two more
basic issues that involve the total lower division education process.
(1) The first revolves around the question, are there influences
within the University environment on a student's intellectual develop—
ment that can substantially reinforce the values of the classroom,
or negate them? Research on this question suggests that there
definitely are. It is the student's peer group to whom he looks
for support and from whom he receives his basic values. The peer
group is equally as important as the professor at least in the early
years of college life. When these strong influences can be mobilized
to support academic and intellectual concerns and values, then the
University will have made a major step in the direction of a more
effective l