xt70p26q2b6t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70p26q2b6t/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1974-03-11  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 11, 1974 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 11, 1974 1974 1974-03-11 2020 true xt70p26q2b6t section xt70p26q2b6t   













The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
March 11, 1974, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Smith P\
presided. Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Harry H. Bailey*, Harry “3
Barnard, Charles E. Barnhart, Robert P. Belin, Robert S. Benton*, Ben W. 4d,
Black*, Chris Boerner, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom, Thomas W. i
Brehm*, Charles L. Brindel, Sam Brown*, Herbert Bruce*, John M. Bryant*,
Collins W. Burnett*, Jean D. Charron*, Charles Conner, William B. Cotter,
Clifford J. Cremers*, M. Ward Crowe, Thaddeus B. Curtz, Patrick P. DeLuca*,
John L. Duhring, Anthony Eardley, William W. Ecton*, Roger Eichhorn*, Robert
0. Evans*, Claude Farley, Juanita Fleming*, Lawrence E. Forgy*, James E. Funk*,
William Gates, John G. Gattozzi, Milton E. Gellin*, Ward 0. Griffen*, George
W. Gunther*, Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, J. Merrell Hansen*, George W. Hardy*,
Louis Hicks, Ron Hill, Raymond R. Hornback, Charles W. Hultman*, Raymon D.
Johnson, Irving F. Kanner*, William F. Kenkel*, E. Barrie Kenney, Don Kirdekdall*,
Robert A. Kuehne, David L. Larimore*, Arthur Lieber, John H. Lienhard*,
Cynthia Link, James W. Little*, Susan A. McEvoy*, Marion E. McKenna*, Mary E.
Minter*, William G. Moody*, Alvin L. Morris*, Vernon A. Musselman*, Arthur F. (
Nicholson, Robert C. Noble*, Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Paul Oberst, Elbert W.
Ockerman*, James R. Ogletree*, Thomas M. Olshewsky, Harold F. Parks*, David
Peck, Daniel R. Reedy*, Donald E. Sands, William Shanks, Otis A. Singletary*, \
A. H. Peter Skelland, David Spaeth*, Robert H. Spedding*, Susan Sprague, William
J. Stober, Andy Strickland*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Lawrence X. Tarpey*, William
C. Templeton*, Paul A. Thornton, Leonard Tipton, Jacinto J. Vazquez*, Harwin
L. Voss, M. Stanley Wall, Daniel L. Weiss*, Bruce H. Westley*, Rebecca Whitis,
LeSlie K. Williamson, Paul A. Willis, Constance P. Wilson, Miroslava B. Winer*,
Ernest F. Witte*, Robert Yeager, Fred Zechman*, Robert G. Zumwinkle*.


The minutes of the regular meeting of February 11, 1974 were approved as

Engineering Dr. T. R. Robe presented the following Resolution on the death of

Professor Karl Lange and directed that it be spread on the minutes of this

meeting and that copies be sent to the family of Professor Lange. Following

the reading of the Resolution the Chairman asked the Senators to stand for a

moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Lange. AI“!

On behalf of the College of Engineering and the Department of Mechanical {

Karl Otto Lange, recently retired Professor of Mechanical Engineering

and Director of the Wenner—Gren Research Laboratory, died November 29th,

1973. He is survived by his wife, Elizabeth, and his two sons, Karl and

Stephan. Born and educated in Germany, Karl obtained his doctorate at

the Darmstadt Institute of Technology. He came to the United States in

1931, at the invitation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to

direct a program of upper atmospheric research. He later served as a research

meteorologist at Harvard University before joining the University of Kentucky

in 1946. A pioneer and recognized authority in the field of Aeronautics,

his career spanned the development of manned flight from balloons and sail—

planes to rocket flights into outer space. In the area of Medical Engineering

his work resulted in international recognition of the University of Ken- ”\

tucky as a research center for gravitational effects on biological systems. ’53»

His development of the Harvard Radiosonde and the Lange Skinfold Caliper, ' “

both of which are on display at the Smithsonian Institute, are typical

of his contributions to instrumentation. The accomplishments of his many {

students and theresearchand training programs which he helped to establish

will continue to complement his distinguished career. .

*Absence explained



Minutes of the University Senate, March 11, 1974 — cont 3732

The University of Kentucky, in bestowing its highest honor on one
,\ of its own, awarded Karl the honorary degree of Doctor of Science in

m 1972. i ,_:. .

Aside from a lot of hard work, Karl's success stemmed from a dis-
cipline of intellect by which he cut through extraneous detail to examine
the heart of a problem. This quality, coupled with his charm and wit, .1.
inspired his students and colleagues to meet his demands of excellence in 53' }
their work. ”

He was, beyond these qualities, an enormously colorful person. On
his face he still wore the "Schmiss," or dueling scars, of one of the
. notorious German dueling fraternities at Darmstadt. During the late

’ 1920's he coupled his meteorological studies with glider flying in Germany.
In this pursuit he encountered such early aerodynamic notables as Antony
Fokker, and Ludwig Prandtl. His permanent move to the United States

i was made in the early thirties because he was quick to recognize the

' direction in which Hitler was to lead Germany. He was a man who used his

w“ personal freedom very well, and he prized it too highly to stay.

‘ During the 1930's he was associated with the famous aerodynamicist i
Theodore von Karman on the design, not of an airplane, but of a windmill.
The notion of going back to windmills for power was then decades ahead of
its time. Nothing came of it then, but now we're returning to the idea.
Shortly after he took over the Wenner—Gren engine laboratory his work
appeared on the cover of Life magazine — a man's face outlined in black
and white bands. He had evolved an optical method for designing space
masks, and indeed turned the laboratory into a leading facility for
biomedical research.


[ It was this way with everything Karl did. He made things take on
new dimensions. He could see around the corner. He brought along a
sense of humor and new twist. We, his colleagues, enjoyed knowing him ‘ ,
and derived a great deal from our association with him. We want his family ‘ l
to know this, and we want to move that this brief tribute be included I
g» in the minutes of the University Senate.

\ The Chairman made the following announcements and gave a summary of Senate l
‘ Council activities since the last report.given.at the February 11, 1974 meeting. ‘

As you will remember, we changed the structure of the Senate last
year. We now have some 14 committees, several of which have anywhere from
three to seven subcommittees. Further, we have a requirement that those
committees be able to get their reports and recommendations for action :H
to the floor of the Senate expeditiously with or without the approval of i}


;h the Senate Council. . Th
1 I, , .
In addition to the items before us today we have already scheduled ‘ i E
for one of the two remaining Senate meetings action on the Krislov Report; W l1 3
1g the required report of the Academic Ombudsman; a complete set of Charges E‘W. g
I» to all of these standing committees that are going to the Rules Committee f f j
’6“. and will come back to you; and action recommendations from some half of E

those 14 committees. It appeared to the Council that the only way we could
possibly accomplish these requirements was by a special meeting. In
addition to the announcement here, of course, we will circulate an announcement.










Minutes of the University Senate, March 11, 1974 — cont

May I also remind you again that the Third Annual Recognition
Dinner will be held on Monday, April 8. That is the same date as
our regular Senate meeting. The dinner will be held at the Continental
Inn. There will be a reception with a facility nearby where, for $1.00,
you can refresh yourself beginning at 5:30 and extending to approximately
7:00. The formal activities of the dinner will begin at 7:00 and hopefully
will terminate by 9:00. As you may remember from the circulation, there
are some 70 people retiring from this institution, many of whom are people
who have been extremely active in the Senate and throughout the campus.

I have been asked to announce to you, and encourage your participation
in, a special program sponsored by the Woman's Club. Specifically, the
U.K. Woman's Club is sponsoring a special blood donation program which will
be this Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Newman Center. You
can call and make an appointment ahead of time if you wish and it is
arranged so that the credit for the blood donated will go to the University—
wide student—staff pool that has been established. Also, if you give one
pint of blood, that entitles you to credit for all the required blood for
four people anywhere in the United States for one year. So it counts two
ways: to your own benefit and to the benefit of the student body.

I would also announce, since we have received queries, that the
Search Committee to find next year's Ombudsman, has been appointed and
you will be receiving things in the future. The Chairman of that Committee
is Professor Raymond Cox, Department of Mathematics.

There are a number of Council activities which have not reached the
floor yet but which will give you some indication of what is forthcoming
and I might list them briefly.

We have received from the College of Pharmacy a proposed Student
Honor Code which has been referred to Committee for consideration. Last
month we completed the last of the Charges to the standing committees
of the Senate and they will be coming to you. We are attempting a
new approach in expediting the University's consideration of various
activities. We have established, with concurrence of the Undergraduate
and the Graduate Councils, a joint study group composed of three members
from each of the three Councils which is going to attempt to expedite
consideration by those bodies of various matters relating to the Southern
Regional Association's Standard Nine changes. With any luck, we may get
them to you this spring. If not, they will be presented in the fall.

We are in the process of attempting to arrange an appropriate liaison

procedure to keep the Senate knowledgeable and ready to act on the Arts
and Sciences reorganization.

We have approved and circulated and sent to the Board, and the Board
has approved, a new degree program, Bachelor of Science in Landscape Arch-

itecture. This is a professional degree and therefore will have to go to
the Council on Public Higher Education.

We have approved changes in the program for the Master of Science
in Educational Psychology and Counseling, and for the bachelor's degree
in Nursing. We have become aware that there are a number of problems with
the Rules of college faculties. Either they are not on file or there are
some discrepancies between those rules and the Governing Regulations and
and the Rules of the Senate. Appropriate steps are being taken to explore
those matters and to attempt to get everybody working in the proper fashion.



 Minutes of the University Senate, March 11, 1974 - cont 3734

We raised a question with Vice President Zumwinkle concerning the
, reports in the student newspaper relating to student grades. We have
Q%’ received a report back from.Vice President Zumwinkle in some detail outlining
that situation and we will continue to take appropriate actions and to
review that report in the near future.

We have held several meetings concerned with Experiential Education
and special teaching activities and defined a particular area of interest
and concern and this has been submitted to the appropriate committees.

We have had a discussion and met with one of our Deans concerning
the question of associate degree programs and certificate programs being
offered within the University System as opposed to the Community College
\ System.

I In addition, we have received, as I mentioned earlier, committee

' reports from the Academic Facilities Committee, with four recommendations;
Admissions and Academic Standards with four or five recommendations; Rules;

.m R Teaching, Learning and Advising; Community Colleges; etc. So you have

' enough to keep you busy.

There is one final request that comes from all of us up front. When
we make recordings of this meeting we do it with a microphone that is hanging
on the podium. For some of you who rise in the back of the room or halfway
up, face the back and speak to yourself the microphone will not pick up
what you have to say. We ask that you face the front and speak as loudly
as possible so that, hopefully, we can get it down. We have had a number

‘ of criticisms about not having an appropriate indication in the minutes
of the sense of discussion on the floor of the Senate and the problem

[ is that we can't take shorthand or record the thing if we can't hear it.
If you have extensive comments to make, feel free to come to the front and

{ use the microphone.

‘ Chairman Smith recognized Professor Joseph Krislov, Acting Secretary of
4'“! the Senate Council, who presented the following motion to the Senate:


A The Senate Council moves that the Rules of the University Senate,

‘ Section 1—7, sub—section 3.13, concerning election of officers of the
Senate Council, be amended, effective immediately, by making the additions

and deletions indicated in the circulation dated February 26, 1974 which
O read as follows:



3.13 Officers

The officers of the Senate Council shall consist of a Chairman,
a Chairman—elect and a secretary. The Chairman shall hold office
from January lst to December 31st, shall preside at Council meetings,

) and shall be responsible for the operation of the Senate Council office.
The Chairman—elect and Secretary shall be elected at the first or
second Council meeting in March. The Chairman—elect shall assume

. the duties of the Chairman in his or her absence, and shall succeed to

p the office of chairman on January lst or at any time that the office

‘Efih becomes vacant. The secretary shall serve for a term of one year

‘ or until a replacement is elected, shall keep the minutes of the Council
meetings, and shall present Council recommendations to the University

A Senate for action. If for any reason the office of Chairman-elect or

‘ Secretary should become vacant, the Council shall act as soon as

possible to elect a replacement.











Minutes of the University Senate, March 11, 1974 — cont

The University Senate approved this motion as presented.

Chairman Smith recognized Professor Krislov who presented the following


On behalf of the College of Arts and Sciences and the Senate Council,

I move the following which was circulated under date of February 26, 1974:

The University Senate recommends to the President for trans—
mission to the Board of Trustees an amendment to the Governing
Regulations by insertion of the following paragraph at the end
of Part VII, Article Four, page 21:

A Faculty may delegate by rule a defined part of the
determination of its educational policies to an assembly of
the college, which shall consist of the faculty and designated
student representatives. The number of students voting and
the method of selecting these students shall be determined by
the rules of the College.

The Senate approved this motion as presented.

Chairman Smith recognized Professor Krislov who presented the following


The Senate Council moves that the three recommendations from the ad

hoc Committee on the Status of Graduate Students (Lowitt Report), approved
by the Graduate Council and circulated under date of February 25, 1974,
be approved and submitted to the President for implementation.

These three recommendations are:




Teaching and research assistants shall maintain satisfactory academic
records and progress toward their degrees, and their assistantships
shall be terminated if their academic progress is not satisfactory.

Teaching and research assistants who are candidates for a Master's
degree shall serve no more than a maximum of three years without
completion of their degree requirements.

Doctoral candidates who are teaching or research assistants shall

have served not more than four years without successfully completing
their qualifying examinations.

Question was raised of whether "doctoral candidates” in 3) above was intended

to mean doctoral candidates who are post—master's candidates.

Following inter-

pretations from the floor, the chairman responded that it was his understanding
that it was the intent of the Committee that "doctoral candidates" applied to
anyone who is a normal full-time or typical part—time candidate under the
generally accepted definition of full—time or part-time candidate.

Question was asked of where these recommendations would appear.


Smith responded that technically, these three recommendations are conditions
of employment and they would be submitted to the President to be issued either
as a part of the Administrative Regulations of the University or by appropriate

memorandum from the President's Office.



Minutes of the University Senate, March ll, 1974 - cOnt 3736

Motion was made from the floor that recommendation 3) be modified to substitute
the word ”students" for the word "candidates".

On question of how one defines "doctoral student” Dean Royster responded that
the Graduate School interpreted this to mean that a student should not be
hired as a teaching assistant or a research assistant for more than four years
without his having shown that he is making enough progress toward the doctoral
degree, by having taken the qualifying examinations.

The Senate voted affirmatively to accept the motion on the floor to substitute
the word "students" for the word "candidates”.

Following short discussion of the interpretation of recommendation 1) above,
motion was made to amend the motion to substitute the words "shall not be re-
newed" for the words "be terminated". The Senate approved this motion.

The Senate then voted to approve the main motion on the floor, as amended twice,
for recommendation to the President for implementation. The three recommendations
as amended and approved read as follows:

1) Teaching and research assistants shall maintain satisfactory academic
records and progress toward their degrees, and their assistantships
shall not be renewed if their academic progress is not satisfactory.

2) Teaching and research assistants who are candidates for a Master's
degree shall serve no more than a maximum of three years without
completion of their degree requirements.

3) Doctoral students who are teaching or research assistants shall have
served not more than four years without successfully completing their
qualifying examinations.

Chairman Smith recognized Professor Krislov who presented the following motion:

The Senate Council and the Senate Committee on Academic Organization

and Structure move that the Senate approve and submit to the President
for transmission to the Board of Trustees, the recommendation concerning
the expansion of the Joint Graduate Residence Center in Louisville
circulated under date of February 28, 1974.

Upon determination that a majority of the Senators had not received this circu-
lation the Chairman declared the motion to be illegal. He stated, however, the
need for this particular item of business to be acted on by the Senate at this
meeting and asked the Senate to waive the Rules and permit the motion to be
placed on the floor for action. The Senate voted to waive the Rules and consider
the motion. The Senate then approved the motion which had been read to them

as follows:

Recommendation: That the Joint Graduate Residence Center presently
approved for use with Teacher Corps Program in Louisville be extended
to facilitate additional cooperative program efforts in Graduate
Education offered by the faculties of the Colleges of Education of
the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky.















Minutes of the University Senate, March ll, 1974 — cont

A Senator raised the question of whether the Senate had voted on the main
motion pertaining to the three recommendations from the ad_hgg Committee on
the Status 2: Graduate Students (Lowitt Report). Upon determination that
the Senate had acted on that motion, a motion was made to reconsider that


In giving reason for the Senate to reconsider its action the Senator cited a
hypothetical case of a student with a year's appointment in an assistantship
failing his courses in the first semester of that year and being permitted to
continue in his assistantship for the remainder of the year. He took the po—
sition that the student should not be permitted to complete his year's appointment
following his failure in the first semester and that the assistantship should

be terminated at that point.

By the required majority vote the Senate defeated the motion to reconsider its
previous action on the three recommendations of the Lowitt Report.

Chairman Smith stated that the next item of business was that of con—
tinued discussion only of the Krislov Report which had been on the agenda
of the February 11, 1974 meeting for discussion. He stated that the Senators
should have received some background material containing appropriate portions
of the Governing Regulations and Administrative Regulations dealing with
appointment, promotion, and tenure which it had asked for; and that this in—
formation was mailed to them under date of March 4, 1974. He directed that
the Recommendations be considered one at a time and that the Senate complete
its deliberations on one Recommendation before moving on to the next. He
reminded the Senators that under the Rules they might propose amendments and
they could be discussed but that they could not be voted on and passed. He
reported that the Council had received some three or four communications from
individuals and they were available and could be read to the Senate if requested.

Chairman Smith then opened the floor for discussion of Recommendation #1 -—
Prior Service Rule.

Recommendation was made by Dr. Wagner that paragraph (1) be amended to insert
in the fourth line between the words "chairman" and "and the dean" the

phrase "the Committee on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure" and to add an
additional sentence to read: "Normally, the review by the Committee on
Appointment, Promotion and Tenure should be made as early as possible in the
consideration of an applicant, preferably before and/or during the interviewing

Dr. Sears asked which committee on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Dr. Wagner
was speaking about. He reminded the Senate that the one for the University
which formerly consisted of the Chairmen of the Area Committees no longer
existed. Chairman Smith replied that at the time the Report was written the
reference was to the collective group known as the Senate Advisory Committee on
Appointment, Promotion and Tenure which was composed of the chairmen of the
seven area committees; that technically this body no longer exists but that

by implication in this report it would be reconstituted for this purpose alone.

Dr. Mandelstam stated that he would support the changes introduced by Dr. Wagner-





1t ,




Minutes of the University Senate, March 11, 1974 — cont 3738

Dr. Goldman stated that he did not support the proposed change; that he con—
tinued to have concern for the ability of the candidate for appointment to be
able to make a determination of whether he wants to have his tenure period
lengthened beyond the AAUP standard. He then proposed the following amendment
to add a fourth paragraph to Recommendation #1.

(4) In the case of (2) above the faculty member shall, one year from the
date of the contract of appointment, have the right to reinstate
all or part of the period of prior service which was eliminated from
consideration in determining the period of tenure review. Such
reinstatement must be by signed letter to the Dean submitted through
the department chairman.

Chairman Smith read to the Senate that portion of the Senate Rules dealing with
discussion only topics which is ". . . In addition, amendments may be submitted
in writing to the Senate Council by any two members of the Senate for distri—
bution with the agenda of the meeting in which action is to be taken. . ." He
said that the two amendments which had been proposed would be made a part of
the agenda at the next meeting in which action is to be taken provided the
proposed amendments were submitted in writing by two members of the Senate.

Professor Rudnick stated that one disadvantage in Dr. Goldman's proposed amend—
ment was the budgetary implication; that this would be a very unilateral kind
of decision when the faculty member is given the right to change his mind but
the University would not have a similar right.

Dr. Gabbard stated that with reference to (3) he would prefer to see the
Committee review be deleted altogether; that he thought the system presently

in operation for appointments, and the determination of the probationary period,
worked quite well; that he thought it was an honest operation and that it
Should be continued and whatever improvements needed to be made should be made
in the present system; that he thought the proposals made thus far only
complicated matters.

A Senator asked if this recommendation was taking away the rights of the in—
dividual to be reviewed if he chose not to have his three years of prior
service at another institution counted here. Would he have to wait, say
seven years before he could be reviewed?

Chairman Smith responded that there was nothing in the regulations that dealt
specifically with the question of a non—tenured faculty member having the
right to request to be reviewed; that one could request to be reviewed at

any time; that it could go seven years. He stated that the problem this issue
addresses itself to is the requirement in the Administrative Regulations and
Governing Regulations that a faculty member be given credit for up to three
years of prior service; that after that, since one has a maximum of seven years,
if one allows the usual 18 months for review, there would be only two and one-
half years in which to consider someone. He stated that if one chose to waive
the regulation, it was his understanding of the recommendation that under the
proposed system one would have anywhere from zero up to the five and one—half
or six years regardless of prior service.

A Senator stated that he supported Dr. Gabbard's position and thought the
Committee on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure should be eliminated from
Recommendation #1, (1); that the faculty and the department chairman in his


, l








3739 Minutes of the University Senate, March ll, 1974 - cont

area have the opportunity to consider all of these questions, and if there
was any need for this committee to make considerations in other areas, he
would like to hear those areas speak up.

Professor High asked Dr. Krislov or any member of the committee the reasons
behind submitting this for review.

Dr. Krislov responded that the reason was very simple and straightforward. A
minority of the committee believed that the review was necessary because in

a tight labor market, it was quite possible that candidates may agree to stip—
ulations that might be harmful to themselves and might, in turn, cast some
doubt on the credibility and honesty of the University. He stated that the
majority of the committee disapproved of this. After discussion with the
President, the Senate Council further discussed the issue and what the Senate
has before it is the recommendation of the Council, namely, that some review
should be available in order to insure the lack of any harm being done to the
candidate or the University.

Professor Just asked why the committee selected the Committee on Appointment,
Promotion and Tenure instead of the Area Committee. He stated that he
thought someone in one given area trying to talk to all the area committees
would not produce meaningful input to understand a person's problems and that
a more appropriate committee to understand the problems in a given area would
be the area committee.

Dr. Krislov responded as follows:

I think it is fair to say that this is a thorny problem. The mi—
nority of the §d_hgg committee wanted to place this responsibility in
the Privilege and Tenure Committee. They quickly indicated that they
did not want the responsibility. The Committee on Promotion, Appoint—
ment and Tenure does not meet very regularly so they did not have an
option to indicate their opposition. If I were discussing who should
do this, I would prefer to have one committee do it because it seems
to me that the problems involved will be very similar. The fact that
someone is an English instructor or someone is in Medicine won't make
too much difference. One committee would be in a better position to
do what we want it to do than a whole series of committees. I agree
with your general remarks that it is difficult to define precisely who
can do this best.

Professor Goldman then made the following remarks:

I think it is important that we do not lose sight of what is
being done if this recommendation is adopted. We are talking here
about, in effect, violating a principle that the University has adopted --
the AAUP standards for the time limits on the decision of tenure.

The reason for the time limits is not simply to have some kind of
initiation rite that one goes through at a certain point in his or her
career. There are values, both for the individual, and for the
faculty's collective interest, in having these time limits. Most

of us, and perhaps all of us, have had the experience of having
colleagues who were not tenured, very obviously withhold, in terms

of their full participation, in controversial faculty matters because
of that sense of insecurity, whether there was any justification on
their part or not. This fear that these same people, or some of these





 Minutes of the University Senate, March 11, 1974 — cont 3740

same people who are having this dispute, are going to be voting on
their future security has an inhibiting effect on some people. And

we have, I think, a collective interest, to make a determination on

job security so that we can gain the benefits of colleagues who are
full participants in the legal matters of a faculty. Therefore, I
think the faculty has a collective interest in participating in the
overseeing of this kind of decision—making of when and whether a particular
individual is going to be reviewed over an extended period of time, a
period of time prolonged beyond normal standards. And for that reason,
I think it is desirable that some machinery be incorporated so that
there is a faculty as well as an administrative input in t