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 LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL IO ADMINISTRATION BUILD|NG TO: 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 (CON/HSLC). AGENDA: Note: Announcements. Resolutions. 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 1989.) 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 Secretary If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms. Martha Sutton (7-7155) in advance. Thank you. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 20, l989 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 ResoTution. MEMORIAL RESOLUTION 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 Resolution. MEMORIAL RESOLUTION 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 noteworthy. 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- ful. 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 one. 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- ments. 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 learning. *** 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 report. 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. Rationale: 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 follows: 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- ments.] [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. Rationale: 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 Economics. 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