xt731z41vj87 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt731z41vj87/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1991-11-11  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, November 11, 1991 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 11, 1991 1991 1991-11-11 2020 true xt731z41vj87 section xt731z41vj87 LHNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL

10 ADMINISTRATION BUI

LDING

31 October 1991

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

November 11, 1991, at 3:00 P.M. in room 115 of the Nursing Building
(CON/HSLC). Note: The Nursing Building is across Rose Street from
the University Hospital and is connnected with the Medical Plaza.
Room 115 is at the north end of the building.

AGENDA:

5203C

Note:

Minutes: September, 1991

Chair's announcements and remarks.

Resolutions.

Dr. Raymond Betts, Faculty Trustee: "Forums with Faculty
Members": 1) What do you 'wish to learn from the Board of

Trustees? 2) What problems should be presented to the Board
of Trustees?

Action Items:

a. Proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Section
IV — 2.2.8, Admission to the College of Architecture.
(Circulated under date of 25 October 1991.)

 

Proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Section V
3.2 Undergraduate Colleges - Probation and Suspension
Policies, College of Architecture. (Circulated under date
of 29 October 1991.)

 

Proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Section
IV — 2.2.3, College of Education, Admission to Teacher
Education. Program. (Circulated under date of 31 October
1991.)

 

Randall Dahl
Secretary, University Senate

If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Sutton in the Registrar's Office in advance, 7—7155.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER ll, 1991

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
November ll, l99l, in Room ll5 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Marcus T. McEllistrem, Chair of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Jim Arnett*, Bart Baldwin, Harry V. Barnard, John J.
Bernardo*, Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Douglas A. Boyd, Carolyn S.
Bratt, Martha Bruenderman, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan Butterfield*, Rutheford B
Campbell, Jr., Bradley C. Canon, Edward A. Carter, Samuel Q. Castle*, Louis C.
Chow*, Donald B. Clapp, Jordan L. Cohen*, Clifford J. Cremers*, Lenore
Crihfield, Scott A. Crosbie, Randall W. Dahl*, Joe T. Davis, Richard C. Domek,
Jr.*, David S. Durant, Jr.*, Paul M. Eakin, Bruce S. Eastwood*, Richard
Edwards, Joseph L. Fink, III, Raymond E. Forgue, Wilbur W. Frye*, James E.
Funk*, Richard W. Furst, Joseph H. Gardner*, Misha Goetz, Lester Goldstein,
Philip A. Greasley, J. Russell Groves*, Robert D. Guthrie, Lynne A. Hall*, J.
John Harris III, Zafar Hasan 8., Christine Havice, Robert E. Hemenway, Donald
L. Hochstrasser*, Brian Hoffman, Micki King Hogue, Richard A. Jensen*, Adrian
Jones*, Kevin S. Kiernan*, Angela Knopp, Kenneth K. Kubota, James M. Kuder*,
Thomas W. Lester, Linda Levstik, Thomas T. Lillich*, C. Oran Little, William
E. Lyons*, Linda J. (Lee) Magid, Shawn Meauz*, Peggy S. Meszaros*, Karen A.
Mingst, Phyllis J. Nash, Clayton P. Omvig, Clayton R. Paul, Deborah E.
Powell*, Daniel R. Reedy, Thomas C. Robinson, Arturo A. Sandoval, Frank A.
Scott*, Jim Shambhu, Andrew Shveda, M. Scott Smith, David H. Stockham, Louis
J. Swift, Michael G. Tearney*, Dennis M. TeKrony, John S. Thompson, John
Thrailkill*, Ann R. Tickamyer, Thomas Tucker, Salvatore J. Turco*, Thomas J.
Waldhart*, Michael A. Webb*, Charles T. Wethington*, Carolyn A. Williams*,
Eugene R. Williams, Paul A. Willis, Constance P. Wilson*, Emery A. Wilson*, H.
David Wilson*, and Peter Wong.

The Chair stated that the Minutes of September l6, l99l, for the first
meeting of the Fall Semester had been distributed and asked for any correc-
tions. The Chair entertained a motion to approve the Minutes. Motion was
moved and seconded to approve the Minutes as circulated.

The Chair made the following remarks:

One of the important remarks is that the Annual Holiday Social
will be held December 9 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the usual place:
the first floor level of the Helen King Alumni House where the
University Senate will host the Board of Trustees and their spouses
and/or companions. I hope that as many of you as can will come
because it is a special opportunity to get across to the Board what a
University is like and what a University faculty member or a student
needs to do. I hope the student senators will come as well as the
faculty senators and talk to the Board members. I'll try to help
introduce you to Board members and the Board members to you so that
we can get as much mixing as possible on that occasion. I strongly

*Absence explained.

 

 encourage you to come at that time. The Board itself meets by
statutory authority on December l0. It has no choice. It is going
to meet Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m. because some of them are
involved in the inauguration festivities of the new governor a little
later that same day in Frankfort. The Board meeting is early, and
the President has his annual holiday dinner for the Board Monday
evening just after our reception.

The other thing I thought I would say a word or two about, and
more will be said later, has to do with the topic of University
finances. I have prepared a list of state appropriations for several
universities that I thought were comparable to ours in a way. I am
not sure about the University of Florida. It has a pretty large
appropriation, nearly $336 million. These are state appropriations,
not total budgets. Typically total budgets range from two to two and
one-half times state appropriation. In our case our total budget is
about $730 million and our state appropriation is much less. Indiana
University has a large state appropriation, about $342 million.
Purdue is comparable to us; University of North Carolina is quite
comparable to us; Rutgers University about $250 million; University
of South Carolina taken with the Medical University of South Carolina
is about $290 million; and the University of Tennessee is about $273
million. Our budget was reported in the Chronicle of Higher
Education as $305 million, and I originally listed that figure.
Assoc1ate Vice President Joan McCauley assures me that is an error.
The correct budget for us before the cuts was $333,ll6,000 which
includes the Community Colleges. They get $73,424,000 originally
which left us, before the cuts, with $260 million state appropria—
tion. We are very comparable to the very good universities. After
the cut I estimate that we will have left about $235 million in the
University system. That means the Lexington Campus sector and the
Medical sector, and then we will be somewhat below comparable
universities.

 

President Nethington has offered to come before us at our
December 9 meeting and tell us what the impact of the cut for the
rest of this year's budget is; this is a continuing cut that carries
over into next year. In other words, it cuts the base. When we make
our biennial budget request for the next biennium we make it on the
basis that has been cut by about five percent. The President is
going to offer us some insight of the framework with which that new
budget will be considered at the December 9 Senate Meeting. Also,
Paul Willis will come before us at that meeting and give us an update
of what the new library means to us. It calls for a redesigning of
our library services. Paul will explain just what the impact of the
library is on the total library service functions for the University
as it is understood as of that time on December 9. As you know, the
library campaign is already underway. That's all about finances,
more detail on December 9.

The other thing I want to do is that you will remember that last
time we were invited to report to you major changes in the
Administrative Regulations and in the Governing Regulations as they
are promulgated and that is going to happen a lot during the next

 

 year or year and one-half. President Nethington has requested a full
thorough review of all of the Administrative Regulations of the
University. Juanita Fleming is leading various committees through a
review of all of these regulations. Already they have finished
updating the University Organization. That is Section l.O-l of
Chapter I of the Administrative Regulations. To see the impact one
would have to read the many pages of the section. I have prepared a
couple of transparencies to show you some of the highlights that I
think might be interesting. This shows the top-level administration
of the University as it is now structured. All of you know that you
can look at this on-line on the UK Computing Center system. The ones
that were on line a day or two ago have not been updated yet, thus
the ones you see by looking at your terminal are not correct. The
correct ones are in your departmental office and they show this
structure. The Board of Trustees at the very top, the President,
Vice President Don Clapp, Vice President for Administration who
serves in the President's absence to carry out his functions. The
Vice President for Administration has several University functions
under his direct authority and management -- design and construction,
purchasing, real property, all the business affairs that go on in the
University are under him. There are several other Vice Presidents.
There is a Vice President for Management and Budget, Ed Carter; Vice
President Eugene Williams for Information Systems; Vice President Joe
Burch, University Relations; and Vice President Lee Magid, Research
and Graduate Studies. This makes the Vice Presidential panel that
governs the administering of the University. There is the academic
leadership of the University which includes the Chancellor for the
Lexington Campus, Robert Hemenway; Chancellor of the Community
College System, Ben Carr; and the Chancellor for the Medical Center,
Peter Bosomworth. There is a special assistant for academic

affairs. That is Juanita Fleming; Director of Athletics, C. M.
Newton; and Legal Counsel, John Darsie. Except for the Legal
Counsel, that represents the President's Cabinet. This is displayed
in the new Administrative Regulations, Chapter I, Section l.O-l.

The other thing that has changed, and everybody is familiar with
this by now, is the way Research and Graduate Studies operate to some
extent, structurally at least. The Vice Chancellor for Research and
Graduate Studies and Executive Director of University of Kentucky
Research Foundation are vested in this Vice President. Under that
are several officers, the Vice President for Research and Graduate
Studies for the Lexington Campus now connects to that office with a
dashed line, not a solid line. The Vice Chancellor for Research of
the Lexington Campus is really a Lexington Campus Sector officer and
is connected directly to the Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor for
Research and Graduate Studies for the Medical Center is connected
directly into the Medical Sector chain and less strongly to the Vice
President for Research and Graduate Studies. But these people link
to both places. The other functions work for Research and Graduate
Studies. Susan Scollay is Associate Vice President for Research and
Graduate Studies for Information Services, Communication and
Advancement, and they were, until recently, seeking another officer
for the post of Associate Vice President for Research to deal with
all the Centers and Institutes that are housed directly in Research

 

 and Graduate Studies. I am not sure that is going forward after the
budget cut.

That is the impact of the reorganization on Research and
Graduate Studies, and I thought it would be interesting to show you
that as well as point out to you that those changes have occurred.

The Chair recognized Professor James G. Hougland, Jr., Chair of the
Sociology Department, for a resolution on Harwin L. Voss. Professor Hoagland
noted that the resolution was written in large part by his colleague, Dr.
Richard Clayton.

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION

Harwin L. Voss
l931 - l99l

Harwin L. Voss, Professor of Sociology at the University of
Kentucky and a widely recognized expert on juvenile delinquency and
drug abuse, died on Monday, September 2, l99l, after a short
illness. He was born on December ll, l93l, in Indianapolis. He
received his BA degree from North Central College in Illinois in
l954, his master's degree and Ph.D. degrees from the University of
Wisconsin in l956 and l962 respectively. After serving as a faculty
member at San Diego State University and Portland State University,
Dr. Voss joined the faculty of the University of Kentucky in l965.
In 1971, he was a Fulbright Lecturer at Hacettepe University in
Ankara, Turkey, and had served sabbaticals in both Hawaii and
Australia.

Professor Voss was the author or editor of 6 books and over 30
articles in the scientific literature. Two of the studies in which
Dr. Voss participated are now considered ”classics" in the fields of
delinquency and drug abuse. At the time of his death, Dr. Voss was
Chairman of a committee for the National Institute on Drug Abuse
responsible for evaluating research proposals concerning AIDS and its
connection to IV drug abuse. He had also served in a number of
capacities within the American Society for Criminology, the American
Sociological Association, and other professional associations.

Professor Voss was an outstanding undergraduate instructor and a
very successful mentor to graduate students. He was responsible for
training a number of persons who are now leading sociologists around
the United States. His specialty was teaching about criminology and
juvenile delinquency with emphasis on drug abuse and AIDS. His
courses always attracted large numbers of students. His reputation
among all students was one of an instructor with high expectations
who cared deeply about his impact on their understanding and capacity
for critical analysis of information.

Within his Department, Dr. Voss was respected for his ability to
combine a willingness to ask hard questions with a commitment to
supporting the social and intellectual life of the Department.
Although it was not unusual for him to disagree with his Chair or
other colleagues, he did not allow his disagreements to stand in the

 

 way of maintaining supportive and friendly relationships with his
colleagues. His support for the Department was such that he agreed
to serve as Acting Director of Graduate Studies during the Spring
l99l semester.

Dr. Voss is survived by his wife Carol, an English teacher at
Lafayette High School in Lexington, three sons, one daughter, and
five grandchildren.

Professor Hougland asked that the resolution be included in the minutes
and that copies be sent to the family. The Chair asked everyone to rise for a
moment of silence in honor of Dr. Voss.

The Chair stated that for those people who enjoy Forums, there are a lot
of Forums during the next week or so. There are three Forums dealing with
reports on the University Self-Study Committees. The first one is November
l2. The Chair reported that the two Faculty Trustees who represent the
faculty: Professors Ray Betts and Carolyn Bratt are anxious to have the
faculty's input on concerns the faculty has for them to deal with as faculty
members of the Board of Trustees. The Chair recognized Professor Ray Betts to
speak to the senate about the Forums that he and Professor Bratt have
scheduled.

Professor Betts' remarks follow:

You should have been informed or soon will be informed that we
are holding three such Forums on three different places on the campus

on November l9, 20 and 2l from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. The first will be
on November l9 at the Medical Center; the second one, November 20,
will be in the Court Room of the Law Center, and the third on the
let in the Student Center. (Corrections to time and place of
meetings with Faculty Board representatives were announced later in
the meeting, as follows: November l8, l9 and 20. The one on November
l8 will be in Room 203 of the new Student Center; on the l9th, on the
second floor of the College of Nursing Building and on the 20th in
the Court Room of the Law Building.) Professor Loys Mather has told
Carolyn Bratt that there seems to be some conflict of scheduling
because the l9th is also the time when the Self—Study Committee will
concern itself with administrative and faculty development. That
particular session will begin at 2:30 p.m. Ours will not begin until
4:00 p.m. We have divided the campus with the notion that people
from the different sectors will come to the room which is closest to
their particular place of research and teaching. We don't think
there should be a serious conflict with the one on the l9th.

Our particular purpose, I think, is self evident. We do serve
as faculty representatives. The Board has been largely recomposed
now, also all of its membership selected and appointed. We think it
is a good time for us to get a more concerted, considered, assessment
of what you think the Board should do and in what manner the Board
might be more involved with University affairs; among other things,
should we invite the Board to the campus to see how things are going
on -- what should be conveyed to the Board in terms of faculty wishes
and desires? Among other things, I'm pleased to say that President

 

 Nethington has concurred in our suggestion that during the January
Board Meeting, the Board members meet with representatives of the
Senate Council, its equivalent Community College System, and Student
Government to inform the Board exactly how faculty and student
government is maintained at this University. There are other matters
of that sort that we certainly can convey to the Board. We are,
therefore, asking you to take advantage of this opportunity as we
would like to take advantage of your insights and concerns in order
to convey what you wish to the Board as expressions of your concern
and of your interest.

When we talked about putting this particular set of panels
together, we had no idea of the budgetary cuts, but I think these
developments make the meetings all more significant. I hope that you
will be willing to come to one of the three that I have announced
November l8, l9 and 20 and give us the advantage of your insight and
expression of your concerns. Thank you very much.

Professor Jesse Neil (Physics) wanted to know if it is possible for
Professor Betts to get out information to the faculty about what issues he
knows of that the Board will be addressing in the near future that the faculty
might have feedback. Professor Betts stated that was not a bad idea and added
that the system is such that about a week before the Board Meeting there is an
agenda which is always updated at the very end. Professor Betts stated that
he would get the information circulated to the faculty. The Chair thanked
Professor Betts, and stated that it should be very interesting to see what
concerns people have for the Board.

The Chair stated that the third action item, having to do with admission
to the Teacher Education Program in the College of Education, had been
withdrawn because there are questions which have not been resolved.

The Chair recognized Professor John J. Piecoro, Jr., Chair—elect of the
Senate Council, for the first action item on the agenda. Professor Piecoro,
on behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of the proposed addition to
the University Senate Rules, Section IV - 2.2.8, Admission to the College of
Architecture. Professor Piecoro stated one word needed to be deleted from the
proposal. It is in Section a, in the sentence which begins "As a rule, the
minimum academic standards ......... The word "nonresident" should be deleted.
Professor Piecoro added that basically the proposal has to do with a couple of
things involving transfer students. First of all, transfer students from
other educational programs and transfer students from other architectural
programs. The proposal is the same for either of those students. The other
part of the proposal has to do with students who have been admitted to and
have completed some professional courses within the College of Architecture
and who have withdrawn from the University for a period of three years or
more. Professor Piecoro stated that part of the proposal should be dealt with
separately and codified as such. The proposal was circulated to members of
the senate under date of 25 October l99l. Professor Piecoro stated that
because the motion was a recommendation from the Senate Council it did not
need a second.

 

The floor was opened for discussion. There were no questions and in a
voice vote the proposal unanimously passed and reads as follows:

 

 Proposal: [Proposed addition underlined]

2.2.8 College of Architecture

Admission to the UniverSity does not guarantee admission to the
College of Architecture. All applicants seeking admission to
the College must make application to the College of
Architecture Admissions Committee. Admission is dependent upon
the availability of resources for the implementation of
adequate instruction; the number of applicants admitted will be
limited by this consideration. Applicants will be examined on
a comparative and competitive basis.

 

a. Beginning Freshmen

Freshman candidates will be admitted in order of priority
on the basis of the following criteria, employed together
in combination:

l. Their potential for general academic achievement
indicated by their high school grade point average and
freshman entrance examination scores (ACT/SAT). As a rule,
the minimum academic standards acceptable to the College of
Architecture Admissions Committee will be the same as those
determined by the Senate Council to apply to the admission
to the University of freshmen students. In the event,
however, that the College Admissions Committee finds clear
indications of probable success in the College from its
review of the other evidence pertaining to a candidate who
would generally be denied admission through failure to meet
these minimum criteria, an exception may be made to this
rule.

2. The probability of their success in a professional
program in architecture as predicted by the Architectural
School Aptitude Test.

3. Comparative measures of their aptitude and motivation
derived by the College Admissions Committee from
supplementary tests (e.g., a home project assignment and/or
a controlled test taken by the candidate on the same day
and at the same place as test in 2 above) and, in certain
cases of indecision and circumstances permitting, personal
interviews.

Freshman candidates must submit a formal application to the
College of Architecture Admissions Committee not later than
January 1 for admission to the College in the following
Fall Semester.

b. Transfer Students: Other Educational Programs
Applicants seeking to transfer to the College of
Architecture from another University College, from a
University Community College or from another institution
will be considered in order of priority on the basis of the
following criteria employed together in combination:

 

 

 l. The indications of their general academic performance as
reflected by their cumulative collegiate grade point
average, and the indications of specific interests and
aptitudes as reflected by their grades in certain critical
disciplines (e.g., biology, foreign languages, freehand
drawing, mathematics, philosophy, physics, etc.). As a
rule, the minimum academic standard acceptable to the
College of Architecture Admissions Committee will be a
cumulative grade point average of 2.0 on a 4.0 scale, or an
average of C, in all previous college work. In the event,
however, that the College Admissions Committee finds clear
indications of probable success in the College from its
review of the other evidence pertaining to a candidate who
would generally be denied admission through failure to meet
these minimum criteria, an exception may be made to this
rule.

2. The probability of their success in a professional
program in Architecture as predicted by the Architectural
School Aptitude Test.

Any applicant who is successful in the Architectural School
Aptitude Test but who has a University GPA of less than 2.0
will not be accepted to begin work in the College of
Architecture. However, a one year deferment of admission
may be granted pending grade improvement to at least 2.0.

 

 

 

 

 

This requirement may be waived by the Dean of the College
of Architecture under extraordinary circumstances.

 

 

3. Other indications of their aptitude and motivation as
may be available (e.g., a portfolio of work, references,
experience in building construction or related fields,
etc.).

4. Comparative measures of their aptitude and motivation
derived by the College Admissions Committee from
supplementary tests (e.g., a home project assignment and/or
a controlled test taken by the candidate on the same day
and at the same place as test in 2. above) and, in certain
cases of indecision, and circumstances permitting, personal
interviews.

Transfer students in this category must submit a formal
application to the College of Architecture Admissions
Committee not later than January l for admission to the
College in the following Fall Semester.

Students who have been admitted to and have completed some
professional courses within the College of Architecture and
have Withdrawn from the UniverSity for a period of three
years or more, or who have not taken profeSSional courses
within the College of Architecture but remain in the
University for a period of two years or more, may not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 re-enter the program without the consent of the Dean of the
College of Architecture, which would be given only under
extraordinary circumstances.

 

 

 

c. Transfer Students: from other Architecture Programs
Students in this category will be conSidered in order of
priority on the basis of the following criteria employed
together in combination:

 

l. The indications of their general academic success and
their success in a professional program in architecture as
reflected by their cumulative collegiate grade point
average. As a rule, the minimum academic standard
acceptable to the College of Architecture Admissions
Committee will be a cumulative grade point average of 2.0
on a 4.0 scale. In the event, however, that the College
Admissions Committee finds clear indications of probable
success in the College from its review of the other
evidence pertaining to a candidate who would generally be
denied admission through failure to meet these minimum
criteria, an exception may be made to this rule.

Any applicant who is successful in the Architectural School
Aptitude Test but who has a University GPA of less than 2.0
will not be accepted to begin work in the College of
Architecture. However, a one year deferment of admission
may be granted pending grade improvement to at least 2.0.
This requirement may be waived by the Dean of the College
of Architecture under extraordinary circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. A review of their portfolio of work in architecture.

3. Letters of reference from four previous instructors in
architecture, and others from teachers, practitioners or
related professionals for whom they may have worked.

4. In certain cases of indecision, and circumstances
permitting, personal interviews.

The College of Architecture Admissions Committee reserves
the right to place accepted students in this category in
the component or components of the College program best
suited to the background and previous development of the
students.

Transfer students in this category must make formal
application to the College of Architecture Admissions
Committee not later than April 15 for admission to the
College in the following Fall Semester.

*****

 

 Background and Rationale:

 

The program of the College of Architecture is one of the
most rigorous undergraduate programs on campus. Therefore
academic skills are required as well as architectural
talent. Students who have college experience in an
unsuitable major leading to an unsatisfactory GPA may find
architecture to be their long—sought major. The College
admissions procedure may identify these students. Some
standard should exist to admit these special cases, within
definite limits and expectations.

It should be noted that there will typically be no more
than three or four cases per year which fall into this
category.

The College of Architecture which has a limited enrollment
policy has an international reputation. The number of
applicants exceeds the number of positions available by a
factor of four to five. With such a large "waiting list"
it is desirable to allow positions which are vacated
through long—term inactivity to be filled by freshman
applicants.

The policy on readmission removes those individuals who
exhibit no interest in actively pursuing a degree in
architecture from the holding of a position in the College
granted through the admission policy of the College.

The length of absence from active participation is
sufficient to determine whether normal progress will be
made in the program. There is always the possibility of an
exception.

Implementation Date: Fall, l992

NOTE: The proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for
codification.

The Chair recognized Professor Piecoro for the second action item.
Professor Piecoro, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of the
proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Section V 3.2 Undergraduate
Colleges - Probation and Suspension Policies, College of Architecture. This
proposal was circulated to members of the senate under date of 29 October
l991. Professor Piecoro stated that since the Senate Council was recommending
the proposal, the motion required no second.

The floor was opened for discussion. The Chair stated that the College
of Architecture feels that the students should demonstrate confidence in
design studio and if they don't perform satisfactorily in design studio, then
that alone would be reason for considering probation and suspension from the
College of Architecture, but not from the University. There were no questions
and in a voice vote the motion unanimously carried and reads as follows:

 

 Proposed Addition:

College of Architecture:

College of Architecture students are subject to the general
University regulations pertaining to academic probation and
suspension. In addition, a student may be placed on probation
in the College of Architecture or suspended from the College of
Architecture, but not necessarily the University, according to
the College standards that follow.

 

A student enrolled in the College of Architecture who is placed
on college probation may continue with studies in the college
and university subject to general University regulations
concerning academic standing. A student enrolled in the
College of Architecture who is suspended from the college may
not take classes offered in the College of Architecture until
reinstated. A student who is suspended from the College of
Architecture may take classes outside the college subject to
general University regulations concerning academic standing.

A grade below C in an architectural design studio is considered
unacceptable for majors in the College of Architecture. A
student who earns a grade below C in a design studio will be
placed on College probation. This probation will be removed
when the student earns a grade of C or higher in the same
studio.

A student will be suspended from the College for:

A. failing to earn a grade of C or higher in a particular
architectural design studio for the second time; or

failing to earn a grade of C or higher in a particular
design studio in its first or second offering after the
semester in which the student earned a grade below C in
that studio, provided