10



Student Code, apologized for not providing copies of the revised document to
members prior to the Board meeting but explained this had been impossible
because of the limited time between the receipt of the recommended revisions
and the meeting on May 5. He said that the committee met three times and
held one open hearing for students and faculty members to present their views.
'The revisions considered by the committee were submited by Student Govern-
ment, the University Senate, and the Student Affairs Office, and carried the
President's recommendations. The committee believes that the proposed
revision is an improvement on the Code in effect and recommends its adoption,
and Mr. Griffin so moved. His motion was seconded by Mr. Hillenmeyer, In
order to provide Mr. Bright an opportunity to discuss the Student Code, vote on
the motion was delayed until his return.

       As a second part of his motion, Mr. Griffin said he wished to recommend
that the Student Code Revision Committee be made a Standing Committee and that
proposed changes be presented to the committee no later than January 30, to
permit the committee to give thorough study to the changes prior to recommend-
ing action t6 the Board of Trustees. Mr. Hillenmeyer concurred in the addition
of this recommendation to the original motion.

       The interim period was used to hear a report from Governor Chandler,
chairman of the Medical Center Committee. Governor Chandler said his com-
mittee had met that morning and received a report submitted by the team which
visited the University Hospital in the spring for evaluation purposes, which report
rated the University Hospital very high.

       Mr. Bright, having returned to the meeting, was asked for his comments
on the proposed revision of the Student Code. He commended the committee for
holding the open hearings and for removing the section on academic affairs from
the Code. He continued that the document was oppressive, that the judicial system
was left without flexibility, that the rights of the community were placed above
those of the individual, that it provided for order instead of justice, and that it
failed to allow students to name students to committees. He predicted that this
might result in a Kent-type confrontation at the University of Kentucky. He ex-
pressed the hope that the Student Code Committee might continue to function in
order to provide a mechanism to effect needed revisions in the Code,

       Mr. Clay said that Mr. Griffin did include in his motion the continuation of
the committee as a Standing Committee. He then said that "the motion has been
made for the adoption of the Code and it has been seconded. If there are no further
questions, all in favor indicate by saying "aye". All opposed "no". " There being
no "no" votes, the motion carried.


       W. Student Demands Presented to the Board by Mr. Bright

       Mr. Bright requested permission to speak which was granted. He said he
had promised the students to convey to the Board the deep concern arid interest