xt70cf9j6p8n https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70cf9j6p8n/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1989-03-20  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, March 20, 1989 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 20, 1989 1989 1989-03-20 2020 true xt70cf9j6p8n section xt70cf9j6p8n LNNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY




10 March 1989

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

March 20, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building





Report from Ray Betts and Mary Sue Coleman, Faculty Trustees.

Action Items

a. Proposal to amend Section I - 2.0 University Senate Rules
to include a representative from the Emeriti Faculty as a
voting member of the Senate. If approved the proposal will
be forwarded to the President for appropriate

administrative action. (Circulated under date of 10 March


Proposal to amend Section IV - 2.2.13 University Senate
Rules, relative to application dates for admissions,

College of Communications. (Circulated under date of 9
March 1989.)

Proposal to amend Section VI - 3.0 ff. to add the academic
offense Falsification of Academic Records. (Circulated
under date of 10 March 1989).

For Discussion Only: Proposed change in University grades and
marking system. (Circulated under date of 10 March 1989).

Randall Dahl

If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Sutton (7-7155) in advance. Thank you.




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March
20, l989, in Room ll5 of the College of Nursing/Health Sciences Building.

Loys L. Mather, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: David Allen*, Richard Angelo*, Michael Baer, Frank
C. Bickel, Wilford A. Bladen, Glenn C. Blomquist, James Boling*, Peter P.
Bosomworth, Darla Botkin*, Earl Bowen, Ray M. Bowen, Stanley D. Brunn*, Glen
Buckner*, Roger Calantone*, Joan C. Callahan, Rutheford B Campbell, Bradley
Canon, Ben Carr, Edward A. Carter, N. Harry Clarke, Jordan L. Cohen*, Joe T.
Davis, Leo S. Demski*, Marcus Dillon, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Paul M. Eakin,
Charles w. Ellinger, Walter C. Foreman, James Freeman*, Richard w. Furst, Art
Gallaher, Jr.*, Thomas C. Gray, Zafar Hasan*, Ronald Hoover, Mehran Jahed,
David C. Johnson*, John J. Just, Richard I. Kermode, Doug Kramer, Kenneth K.
Kubota, James M. Kuder*, Gerald Lemons, C. Oran Little, Paul Mandelstam*,
James R. Marsden*, Geraldine Maschio, George Mitchell, Arthur J. Nonneman,
Dennis T. 0fficer*, Alan Perreiah*, John J. Piecoro, Jr.*, Deborah E. Powell*,
Thomas C. Robinson, James Rose, David P. Roselle*, Edgar L. Sagan, Al Slusher,
Louis J. Swift, Manuel Tipgos, Glen R. Van Loon*, James H. Wells, Charles T.
Wethington, Eugene Williams, Constance P. Wilson*, Emery A. Wilson, and H.
David Wilson*.

The Chair made the following announcements:

First of all, I have an information item. The Senate Council
has asked me to assemble a group of Deans and Associate Deans known
as a Discussion Group. The primary purpose is to bring the various
deans and their assistants together to discuss academic policy,
particularly procedures in carrying out academic policies. We have
met a couple of times, and I would say have had some rather fruitful
discussions. Based on the agenda items they have suggested, it is
probably a group that will continue for some period of time. The
main objective is simply to provide coordination across the colleges
of implementation of academic policy.

I assume all of you are aware that we are in the process of a
search for a Chancellor for the Lexington Campus. I thought you
would be interested in knowing that the Senate Council has been
invited to participate in the interview process of the candidates
when they are going through their formal interviews. We were
involved in an interview last week with Professor Hemenway and will
be involved again over the next two weeks.

Third, I want to announce to you the results of the election of
a faculty member on the Board of Trustees which was just concluded
last week, and I am pleased to announce that Professor Ray Betts has
been reelected for a second term on the Trustees. Congratulations
Ray. [Professor Betts was given a round of applause.]

*Absence explained.


 The Chair recognized Professor NesTey Thomas for the purpose of a MemoriaT

Norman Binger 1914-1988

Norman.Binger, professor emeritus of German, died August T7,
1988. He retired in T979 after having taught for thirty years at the
University of Kentucky. Norman was born and attended pubTic schooTs
in MiTwaukee, Wisconsin. He received a 8.3. from the University of
Wisconsin, a M.A. from the University of Miami, and, in 1942, a Ph.D.
from Ohio State University. He then taught a year at the Virginia
MiTitary Institute before entering the army in T943. After his dis—
charge he taught at the University of Michigan and at the Virginia
MiTitary Institute before coming to the University of Kentucky in
T949. The same year he married the former Jane FuTTer, who subse-
quentTy taught for some years in our CoTTege of Library Science.

NhiTe at Kentucky Norman was active in various professionaT
organizations and enterprises. He was business manager, Tater editor
of the Kentucky Foreign Language QuarterTy; editor of the Kentucky
Modern Foreign Language NewsTetter; business manager, Tater director
of the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference; president of the Foreign
Language Section of the Kentucky Education Association; vice-presi-
dent, then president of the South AtTantic Section of the American
Association of Teachers of German; co-founder of the Internationai
Arthur SchnitzTer Research Association; chairman of the Foreign
Language Section of the Kentucky Association of CoTTeges, Secondary,
and ETementary SchooTs; a member of the committee set up by the
Modern Language Association of America to estabTish state foreign
Tanguage buTTetins; and curricuTum consuTtant for Midwest Airborne
EducationaT TV, in Lafayette, Indiana. HhiTe a FuTbright Research
FeTTow at the Austrian NationaT Library, he gave many Tectures
throughout Austria under the sponsorship of the U.S. Embassy and the
U.S. Information Service.



Norman's teaching record shows a broad area of interest and com-
petence, ranging from fourth century Gothic to twentieth-century
Impressionism. He had a great deaT of inteTTecturaT curiosity and
was a firm beTiever in the vaTue of knowTedge for its own sake, which
no doubt contributed to his achieving a reputation as an inspiring
and stimuTating teacher. His other contributions to the university
incTude direction of M.A. theses and a Ph.D. dissertation, a consid-
erabTe amount of student advising, and service on a Targe number of
departmentai and coTTege committees as weTT as on over fifty M.A. and
Ph.D. committees of the Graduate SchooT. He is the author of three
books, the co—editor of a fourth book, and the author of eighteen
articTes and reports in schoTarTy and professionaT journaTs. He was
an abTe and most congeniaT coTTeague.

Norman is survived by his wife Jane, who continues to reside in
Lexington, and a son CharTes, of St. Louis.

(Prepared by NesTey Thomas, professor emeritus of German)


 The Chair asked the Senate to rise for a moment of silent tribute.

The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem for a Memorial

Robert E. Knight 1932—l989

Robert Knight, known as Bob to his colleagues, died Saturday
morning, February 18, after an illness which had grown progressively
worse during the past year. Bob lived two weeks following his
hospitalization for treatment of cancer on February 3.

Following Robert's birth in St. Paul, Nebraska on December l7,
l932, his family soon moved to Odessa, Texas where Robert spent most
of his childhood and early school days. He was devoted to his
father, himself a highly educated man, who with gentle care, intro—
duced Bob to the world of the mind and of books. Robert graduated
from the University of Texas in l954 and continued on there through
the PhD degree in physics in l963. He stayed on at the University of
Texas as a Research Associate for the two year period, l963 - 1965.
Robert joined the faculty of the Department of Physics and Astronomy
at the University of Kentucky in the Fall of 1965. Nith the excep-
tion of sabbatical leave to the University of Illinois at Carbondale,
he spent his academic career here at Kentucky.

Bob made important contributions to the application of quantum
mechanics to muleielectron atoms and molecules. His PhD dissertation
was on the two electron neutral atom, Helium. During his profes-
sional life from l962 to l989, his work on the structure of atoms and
molecules continued with collaborators from the University of Texas,
the University of Illinois, and our own Department of Chemistry. He
was active in research right up to the time of his hospitalization,
with a paper submitted only weeks earlier, and further work in
progress. Bob's contributions to his individual research and to
collaborative work grew out of a deep understanding of the mathemati-
cal methods of quantum mechanics. Research work completed was of the
highest quality and stands at the forefront of work in his field.

Bob was a quiet and effective teacher. His students remember
him for his gentle and competent style in the presentation of the
ideas of physics. His mathematical and computational skills were

Robert Knight was, in many ways, a free spirit. He was a bache-
lor who, to our knowledge, never owned a car. Bob did things in his
own unique way, usually around Chevy Chase where he lived during all
of his time in Lexington. He frequented the Saratoga restaurant for
meals and companionship when he was not at work in his office. He
could be seen in the early morning or late afternoon walking between
the Department of Physics and Astronomy and his apartment in Chevy
Chase. Robert was well known in the town, especially by those in the
Chevy Chase area where he had many friends. He attended Du: Redeemer


 Lutheran Church where he went to share the faith of his childhood
with the people he loved.

Robert was a delightful companion to those interested in his
hobby, reading history and studying governments of the world.
Current events were of great interest to him and he loved to converse
about issues of the day. Robert read history for entertainment and
had acquired an encyclopedic knowledge of world events and personali-
ties. Bob had a wonderful memory for things he read. He always had
his own unique interpretation of the events old and new; one might
disagree, but Bob's facts were always straight and his views thought-

Robert Knight is survived by his mother, Pauline, of Odessa,
Texas and by a brother, Halter of Dallas, Texas. His Father and two
brothers, one older and one younger, have preceded him in death.

Professor McEllistrem asked that the memorial resolution be adopted by the
University Senate, spread upon the minutes and that copies be sent to the
family of Robert E. Knight.

The Chair asked the Senate to rise for a moment of silent tribute.

The Chair stated there were two resolutions which the Senate acted on at
its last meeting concerning Governor Chandler. The first of those two was
postponed until the March 20 meeting.‘ The second resolution charged the
Senate Council to study the situation and either respond in a resolution
itself or call the Senate into a special session if necessary or bring a
resolution to this body on March 20. The Chair stated that given the way
events unfolded, the Senate Council at its meeting on March 6 felt that was
the time the statement needed to be available. The Senate Council passed the
following resolution:

Through his public use and his recent alleged use of an epithet
repugnant to the university community, Governor A. B. Chandler has
associated himself with an attitude which is antithetical to the
philosophy of this university.

Because of the damaging controversy generated by these remarks, we,
the University of Kentucky Senate Council, therefore believe that the
interests of the university would be best served by Governor
Chandler's resignation from the Board of Trustees.

The motion that was postponed until the March 20 meeting follows:

Whereas, Governor Chandler has repeatedly insulted race relations at
the University of Kentucky, and

Whereas, Governor Chandler sits on the Board of Trustees and has a

voting role in representing the views of the University
community, and


 Whereas, the student body of the University of Kentucky strongly
disagrees with Governor Chandler's remarks, and

Whereas, the integrity of the faculty, staff, and students of the
University Community needs to be upheld, and

Whereas, we recognize Governor Chandler's past contributions to this
state through his governorship and role as Baseball Commissioner,

We hereby respectfully call for Governor Chandler's resignation from
the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees.

A motion was moved and seconded to substitute the motion prepared by the
Senate Council for the resolution presented at the February 27 meeting. There
was no discussion. Motion to substitute the resolution presented by the
Senate Council carried unanimously. The floor was opened for discussion on
whether to adopt the new resolution. Question was called. The motion in
favor of the substitute resolution carried unanimously.

The Chair recognized Professor Ray Betts (Honors Program) for the annual
report from the Board of Trustees.

Professor Betts' report follows:

One of my neighbors remarked the other day that she regularly
saw the back of my head on the televised reports of the meetings of
the Board of Trustees. It is the head that counts, of course, for
there is housed the reason--and the reasons—~for which each of us is
here at the University of Kentucky.

But what the front of the head has witnessed at the Board meet-
ings~is the activity undertaken by a small group of, but not in, the
university. The Board looks outward. The metaphorical door through
which it exits gives on to the marketplace and the forum, where IBM
regularly makes advanced computers and where the governor of the
Commonwealth occasionally advances ill—made statements.

The politics of the Board are not so complicated as they are
far-reaching and, yes, delicate. Particularly during this last year,
eventful because of special problems of governance, on the court in
one instance and out of the mouth in another, I have realized the
unsettled position of a public university in a state where higher
education is such a rich political matter and such a poorly funded

The Board of Trustees, like the University, is an agency of
state government, responsible to the elected representatives,
accountable to the citizenry. Yet both Board and University are, or
should be, autonomous, confidently given the authority to cultivate a
place of free intellectual inquiry: a state university bearing the
state name, but a stateless university with interests and concerns
that reach back in time long before someone drew the political bound—
aries of Kentucky, and that reach far afield to places where the
legislated UK—U of L basketball game is of no interest, of no conse—


 quence. By definition, a university is dedicated to the examination

of the universal. When parochial interests impede or mock that dedi-
cation, then the individual minds and the collective mentality of all
of us here-and—now, in Kentucky in l989, suffer. We become something
less than we ought to be.

The prefatory statement is sort of like the stage directions for
the drama that was enacted on the l8th floor of Patterson Office
Tower this last year. It was not Greek drama, of course, because
that requires some devinely introduced flaw. The flaws that we
encountered were of human contrivance, but they have threatened the
structural integrity of the university.

The first flawed situation is the most obvious, the most lime—
lighted, the one partially resolved just a day ago. I have found
basketball to be a major Board preoccupation, an unfortunate but
necessary preoccupation, because this sport, at best peripheral to
the purposes of any university, has, in its mismanagment and publicly
alleged misbehavior, badly disturbed, rather than joyfully diverted
our University community.

However, what might euphemistically be called the "the basket—
ball situation" has also had an alloying effect on the Board. First,
it has created a special sense of public responsibility, a general
realization that the Board must vigorously protect the principles of
this university against unwarranted, unseemly intrusion from those
who assume that higher education is essentially measured as the dis—

tance from the floor to the hoop. Secondly, most of us on the Board
have deepened our already strong respect for the university presi—
dent, David P. Roselle, who has skillfully and calmly managed a
situation of both dreadful and ridiculous proportions.

Yet, if once again the old adage that adversity has its uses has
been given new meaning in the course of discussion of this matter,
those uses do not count for much against the deficit of consideration
of new academic initiatives. Efforts by your faculty representatives
to create a more knowledgeable and interacting community of concerned
university citizens——Board members, joined with faculty and students
in discussion of current programs, policies, and problems——have been
delayed or have been only partially considered. Put otherwise, the
Board of Trustees having been informed of NCAA allegations has
accordingly been less informed of on—campus activities and achieve-

The second flawed situation that the Board has encountered is of
a personal and political nature. It concerns the intolerable use of
language by a Board member, not an ordinary citizen, Albert B.
Chandler. Governor Wilkinson should be criticized for a lack of
intelligent political judgment in his appointment of a gentleman of
such advanced age and of such long and honored public service to a
position where he could only do harm to his own reputation and, of
immensely greater importance, where his intensifying political
solipsism risked generating what in fact occurred, the insult and
hurt to all of us who know that words are humankind's most powerful


 instruments, well used to define and dignify, meanly used to distbrt
and demean.

A board of trustees, as the very title suggests, is responsible
for upholding its accepted trust, in this instance a trust to assure
human decency, to respect the dignity of the individual and of the
group, to treat thought as sacred. Anyone uninterested or incapable
of upholding this trust does grave disservice to the university and
merits nothing other than dismissal from that responsibility.


I have ranged far and yet have said all too little. I have not
commented on the good people who serve on the Board, busy public
figures who, unlike the faculty representatives, do not have such an
immediate and direct involvement with the University and yet who have
as spirited a concern as any of us. Six of them, five graduates of
UK and the sixth with no such connection to the institution, have
mentioned to me in private moments how much this school means to the
state, how desirous they are to see the University move ahead and
upward, to the place it should, to the place it can, occupy. Here
are political appointees with but one political purpose: the better-
ment of this university as Kentucky's premier institution of higher


I now end one term of service and prepare for another. The
already accumulated experience might immediately be described in
popular idiom as one that was mind-boggling and gut-twisting. But
that experience must also be described as having been encouraging and
hopeful, sentiments elevated by a dedicated and forward—looking
president and by a large number of Board members who value the
University for the same reasons that you and I do.

Reduced to essentials, a university is mind, spirit, and space.
In this next academic year we should hope, I think we have many
reasons to expect, that all three conditions will expand in harmon—
ious relationship at the University of Kentucky. That is good to
report because that is good to know.

Professor Betts was given a round of applause.

The Chair recognized Professor Mary Sue Coleman for her Board of Trustees

Professor Coleman's report follows:

This past year has brought drastic changes to the Board of
Trustees. We have lost Cap Hershey, Albert Clay, and Robert
McCowan. The latter two individuals were long-time board members and
served in the Presidential Search process. During that time, Wilbur
Frye, Bob Guthrie, Tim Cantrill and I had the opportunity to educate
them fully about the complexity of the University and about its


 financial needs. Now we have to start from scratch. The new members
appointed were Foster Ockerman, William Sturgill and Will Burnett.

As you know, Foster Ockerman is the new chairman of the board. The
President has reported to me that Mr. Ockerman has worked well with
him so far. Certainly I hope that a productive relationship contin-
ues. The University desperately needs more funding from the state
and the board needs to be behind this effort. My reading of the new
board is that there are opportunities for education of the members
and that we can win their support (it is this role that I believe is
the most important one of faculty representatives to the BOT). The
dangers are that some members of the board do not fully understand
the need to delegate decision making to duly constituted authori—
ties. So the question of opportunity versus meddling is in delicate
balance. I believe we need to proceed with caution to educate and to
address matters of concern without giving the opportunity for
meddling. '

An example of problems that can arise is illustrated in the
reaction of some board members to ITAs. There is much emotion about
TAs with little insight. We have addressed this issue by pulling
together a group of diverse faculty to design and evaluate a study of
perceptions and performance of ITAs. Funding for the project has
come jointly from Don Sands' office and from the President's office.
The study includes a survey of department chairs as well as students
addressing instruction by DTAs, ITAs and faculty. This is a descrip-
tive/analytical study that addresses not only the nature of the
instruction, but also the nature of the evaluator. It will give us
data essential for integrating TAs into the instructional programs of
the institution.

The academic affairs subcommittee of the board has been active.
I chair that committee and we have begun to use it to educate the lay
members about UK. We have dealt with the issue of ITAs and we have
had a full presentation by the Admissions staff. Plans are underway
to bring in various academic and support units - i.e, counseling
center, individual colleges, centers, professional schools.

This committee plus the senate council has also suggested a
luncheon format for information sessions. We have had two such
sessions. In the first, we brought in representatives of four
colleges and divided the board into small groups. This was very well
received by board members. In the second format, we had a presenta-
tion by the Center on Aging to the full board. These are popular
sessions that should continue.

What about the NCAA report? I am pleased with the development
of yesterday. This will give us a fresh start. The board itself has
been briefed two times and has voted to keep the report confiden—
tial. The reasons are as follows:

A) NCAA has requested confidentiality to preserve their
ability to carry out investigations.


 B) We believe in due process - i.e., not convicting people
in the press; the NCAA Committee on Infractions is a
faculty body — judgments of guilt or innocence will be
made by a group of faculty from comparable institutions
around the nation.

C) The briefing was thorough; the report was done with
extraordinary care. There was no second guessing from
those who heard the report.

Finally, I wish to let you know that faculty are welcome to
attend board meetings. Many people came last time and I think that
is good. It shows faculty interest to the board. We encourage you
to attend - simply go to the express elevator in the Patterson Office
Tower at about l P.M. the day of the meeting. All are welcome who
wish to attend.

Professor Coleman was given a round of applause.

The Chairman thanked both Professors Betts and Coleman. There were no
questions for the two trustees.

The Chair recognized Professor Donald Leigh, Chair—elect of the Senate
Council, for the first action item on the agenda. Professor Leigh, on behalf
of the Senate Council, moved approval of the proposal to amend Section I - 2.0
University Senate Rules to include a representative from the Emeriti Faculty
as a voting member of the Senate. If approved the proposal will be forwarded
to the President for appropriate administrative action. This proposal was
circulated to members of the Senate under date of l0 March l989.


The Chair noted this was a recommendation from the Senate Council and did
not require a second. The floor was opened for discussion. There were no
questions and the motion in favor of the proposal as circulated passed unani—
mously and reads as follows:

Pro osal:

lfie Senate Council and the Senate Rules Committee recommend to
the Senate and the Administration that the voting membership of
the Senate be increased to include one person elected by the
University of Kentucky Association of Emeriti Faculty. The
Association shall elect one senator and one alternate from
their membership through an election process approved by the
Senate Council.


With the organization of the Association of Emeriti Faculty and
the significant role of emeriti faculty in the life of this
institution, it is appropriate that they be accorded represen—
tation in the University Senate through vote and voice.

Effective Date: Upon approval by the Board of Trustees.


 The Chair recognized Professor Donald Leigh for action item (b) on the
agenda. Professor Leigh, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved to approve
the proposal to amend Section IV - 2.2.13 University Senate Rules, relative to
application dates for admission, College of Communications. He stated that
the rationale established firm dates for admission and would allow better
evaluation of dossiers and more thorough advising. This proposal was circu-
lated to members of the Senate under date of 9 March l989.

The Chair again noted this was a Senate Council recommendation and did not
require a second. The floor was opened for discussion.

Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) wanted to know if a major or
premajor could apply for admission to the College of Communications and he
also wanted to know the rationale for the change. Dean Douglas Boyd (College
of Communications) stated there were both major and premajor classifications.
The reason the college asked to amend the admissions policy was due to dead—
lines. What the college wants to do is make sure the application for both
majors and premajors be received in sufficient time to evaluate and advise
students. He added that the college had always had majors and premajors.
There was no further discussion. The proposal passed unanimously and reads as

Proposal: (add underlined portion; delete bracketed portion)

2.2.13 Admissions Policy & Process: [Applications must be
made to a specific degree program, not the College as a
whole. Applications must be made directly to the
College Coordinator of Academic Affairs. Normally,
such application will be made prior to the satisfactory
completion of 60 semester hours of college level
studies.] Application for admission to the College of
Communications, whether premajor or major, must be
received by the College Coordinator of Academic Affairs
no later than April I for the sumner session, June l
for the fall semester, and October 15 for the spring
semester. [Subsequent transfer between programs will
be permitted, and may be accomplished by applying to
that program and satisfying the admissions require-

[Normally (for advance registration purposes) applications are
to be submitted by March l for Fall semester and summer ses—
sions, and by October l for the Spring semester. Transfer
students not wishing to advance register must submit applica—
tions by July l for the Fall semester, by November l5 for the
Spring semester, and by April l for the Summer sessions.]
[All] Applications should include [a] transcripts showing all
grades earned at all colleges and universities attended by the
applicant. Normally students apply for admission to a major
program prior to the satisfactory completion of o0 semester
hours of college-level courses. [The transcripts should offer
proof that 45 semester hours have been completed and accepted
by the University, and that all other requirements for the
program have been completed.] For admission to a degree


 program the transcripts should offer proof that 45 semester
hours have been completed and accepted by the University and
that all other requirements for the program have been com—
pleted. Subsequent transfer between College of Communications
programs will be permitted.


Establishing firm dates for admission will allow better evalua-
tion of dossiers and more thorough advising. These dates will
provide reasonable deadlines and will be consistent with the
dates which the Senate approved for the College of Business and

Effective Date: 1990 Spring Semester Applicants

The Chair recognized Professor Leigh for agenda item (c). Professor
Leigh, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved to approve the proposal to amend
Section VI - 3.0 ff. to add the academic offense Falsification of Academic
Records. This proposal was circulated to members of the Senate under date of
l0 March l989.

The motion did not require a second. In discussion which followed Dean
Douglas Wilson (Dean of Students) opposed the adoption of the proposal at this
time because it would set up a situation where a University Senate regulation
is already addressed in the Code of Student Conduct. He suggested a better
way to handle the situation would be to have the University Senate Committee
that made the proposal decide whether or not this should be an academic or
nonacademic offense. He felt that by adopting the proposal the Senate was
setting up a conflict and a duplication that he believed was unnecessary.

Professor William Moody (Academic Ombudsman) agreed with Dean Wilson in
some respects. He did not want to debate whether or not the problem is
academic or disciplinary. His understanding is not necessarily parallel with
what the University has in situations of cheating and plagiarism. His other
concern is about checks and balances that are built into the system. Person-
ally he did not see that the proposal had the correct amount of balances and
checks in the system simply because in the cases of cheating and plagiarism
there is a very basic substantial system in place, and he did not see that in
the proposal. He felt that if a system has been working over the past years
then his philosophy is ”if it is not broken, then let's not fix it.” He
stated that he would be happy to work with a committee on the proposal
strictly from the ombudsman's office. If it is to be declared an academic
offense such as cheating and plagiarism, then it would come back to the
ombudsman's office to work out considerable detail, par