xt74xg9f7p6d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74xg9f7p6d/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1979-03-12  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 12, 1979 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 12, 1979 1979 1979-03-12 2020 true xt74xg9f7p6d section xt74xg9f7p6d UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

March 1, 1979

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
March 12, 1979 at 3:00 p. m. in the Classroom Building, Room 118.
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN MEETING PLACE.

AGENDA:

1) Minutes: January 22, 1979 and February 12, 1979.
(Circulated by mail.)

Chairman's Remarks.

Action Items:

3.) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I,

2. 2.1 (c) Elected Faculty Membership to the University
Senate. (Circulated under date of March 1, 1979.)

b) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I,

3. 3. 2 Composition of the Undergraduate Council. (Circulated
under date of March 1, 1979.)

c) For Discussion Only: Withdrawal Policy. (Circulated
under date of February 21, 1979.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

Note: If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms°
Martha Ferguson (7—2958). Thank you.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 12, 1979

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 12, 1979,
in Room 118 of the Classroom Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Charles E. Barnhart, Janis L. Bellack*, John J. Bernardo, Mark “-lr’)
Birkebak*, Brack A. Bivins, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0. Blues*, Robert N. Bostrom*, Judy
Brown*, Sara Brumbaugh*, Joseph T. Burch, Joe B. Buttram*, W. Merle Carter*, S. K. Chan, (~\.7
Donald B. Clapp, D. Kay Clawson*, Lewis W. Cochran*, Clinton Collins*, Glenn B. Collins*,
Frank Colton, Ronda S. Connaway*, Samuel F. Conti, James E. Criswell*, Paul Davis, John A. \3
Deacon*, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Joseph M. Dougherty}\
Louis Diamond*, Anthony Eardley, Bruce S. Eastwood*, W. W. Ecton, Joseph Engelberg*,

Richard A. Etlin, James E. Funk*, Art Gallaher*, Abner Golden*, Andrew J. Grimes, Gilbert
Haertel, S. Zafar Hasan*, Virgil W. Hays, Roger W. Hemken*, Raymond R. Hornback, Eugene
Huff*, Charles W. Hultman*, Clyde L. Irwin, Donald W. Ivey*, H. Douglas Jameson, Dean Jaros,
Keith H. Johnson*, Margaret W. Jones*, Wesley H. Jones*, Aimo J. Kiviniemi, James A.
Knoblett*, Mark Koopman, Linda Krefting*, Joseph Krislov*, William B. Lacy, Thomas P.

Lewis, Arthur Lieber*, John Lihani*, William L. Matthews, Bettie W. McClaskey, Marcus T.
McEllistrem, Marion E. McKenna*, Dorothy A. Miller*, Catherine Morsink*, Judith Mosher*,
Phillip J. Noffsinger*, Clayton Omvig, Merrill W. Packer, Bobby C. Pass, Doyle E. Peaslee,
David Peck*, Alan R. Perreiah*, Deborah E. Powell, David H. Richardson*, Robert W. Rudd*,
Ramona Rush*, Pritam S. Sabharwal, Patrick J. Sammon*, Stanley R. Saxe*, Mike Schutte*,
Ronald J. Seymour*, D. Milton Shuffett*, Timothy W. Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, John T.
Smith, Stanford L. Smith, Tim Smith, Lynn Spruill, Marjorie S. Stewart*, Anne Stiene—Martin*,
Joseph P. Straley, Willis A. Sutton*, Louis J. Swift*, Rodney Tulloch*, William F. Wagner,
John N. Walker*, M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace*, Richard L. Warren*, Mike Whitlock*, J.
Robert Wills, Constance P. Wilson*, H. David Wilson, Fred W. Zechman*, Robert G. Zumwinkle*

The minutes of the special session of January 22, 1979, were approved as circulated.
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, 1979, were approved as circulated with
one change. Professor George Schwert moved that on page four (4) his remarks should read:
”....are stated in such specific and fixed terms that they cannot conveniently be replaced
by other course offerings. The motion was seconded and approved.

The Chairman made the following announcements. The first item concerned the COSFL
which was proposed by Assistant Professor Tom Jones of Western Kentucky University. A
group of persons interested in the project, which is a kind of Congress of the Senate, has
met four times. At each meeting at least one representative of the University of Kentucky
has been present. The meetings have been completely informal and are unofficial. Mr.
Jones at one point designated the group as the Congress of University Senates. More re—
cently he has been calling it the Congress of Senate Faculty Leaders, and he has proposed
a variety of activities for this group in addition to the sharing of information and the
discussion of common concerns. The main concern of most of the members is apparently
economic. Things they have considered are the evaluation of the performance of the President
of each respective institution, the interrogation of prospective gubernatorial candidates
and most recently continued consultation with the Council on Higher Education. This group
sent a resolution to the Senate Council which was discussed at the Council's meeting on
Friday, March 9.

*Absence explained

 

 The Council had reservations about the resolution, which they sent to Mr. Jones and to

make it clear that the Council is not closing the door, invited him to suggest alternatives.
The Chairman said that he hoped to have a response in order to make a full report at the
April Senate meeting.

The second item had to do with a committee appointed by Vice President Cochran to
consider the state of the catalog. The Chairman says that everybody agrees that the Senate
is responsible for all approvals and that the Registrar is responsible for the physical
preparation of the catalog. He noted that trouble with the catalog has arisen because de-
cisions concerning its preparation have been made in a variety of places and that conse—
quently contradictions have occurred. Everyone also agreed, he noted, that it is desirable
to computerize the catalog to remove this kind of contradiction and confusion. He noted
further, however, that computerization would come with certain costs. One would be the
limit on data that could be included. Course titles might have to be limited to 120
spaces, prerequisites to 100 spaces, and descriptions to 600 spaces. Enforcement of the
regulations of this kind would be the responsibility of the Registrar. Patience and fore—
bearance would be the responsibility of all the rest.

The final item that the Chairman brought to the Senators' attention concerned the
Retirement Dinner which had been announced for April 9 but has been cancelled. Just as
soon as the Chairman knows something definite, he will notify the members of the Senate.

The Chairman recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I, 2.2.1 (c) ”Elected Faculty Member—
ship to the University Senate.” This proposal had been circulated to members of the
University Senate under the date of March 1, l979. The floor was opened for questions
and discussion.

 

Professor Gesund said that he was not sure that the Senate had such a tremendous
responsibility that each unit had to have the continuity that the proposal implied, and
he was puzzled by it and didn't realize the Senate was doing anything which required
such continuity. Professor Plucknett pointed out that having a wholly new slate of re—
presentatives at the same time would happen very rarely. Professor Lienhard said that
he agreed with Professor Gesund but noted that wording of the proposal is permissive.

The motion in favor of the proposal was made, seconded and passed. It reads as follows:

Background:

In the beginning our Senate Rules governing the election of
Senators to represent the various divisions of the University were
devised to maintain a healthy degree of continuity of membership.
The body would always be composed of new Senators and Senators
with varying amounts of experience. For some time, however, it has
been obvious that these rules do not always work. It now happens
that in some divisions the entire complement of Senators is retiring
at the same time, presumably to be followed by a wholly new and inex—
perienced slate of representatives. This past year, for example,
six units found themselves in an ”unstaggered situation,” the entire
contingent being eligible for replacement. The following proposal,
originally made by Professor John Rea and subsequently considered by
the Senate Council and the Rules Committee is now being presented as
a remedy for this situation.

 

 Proposal: (add underlined portions; delete bracketed materials)

I. 2.2.l (c) Elected Faculty Membership —— As specified in the
Governing Regulations, each elected faculty member shall serve
for a term of three years; Ideally, the terms of the repre—
sentatives of each academic unit or sub—unit should be staggered
so that one~third of them will be elected at each election.

To this end the faculty of the academic unit represented, may,
for any election, specify that a number of representatives be
elected for two—year terms. If such action is taken, the dean
of the academic unit involved shall notify the Secretary of the
Senate of such intent in advance of the upcoming election. When
more than one member is to be elected from a unit or sub-unit,
those receiving the greater number of votes will serve three—
year terms and those elected receiving the lesser number of votes
will serve two—year terms. [and] Each elected representative
shall be eligible for reelection for a second consecutive term,
but .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Implementation Date: Fall, 1979.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I, 3.3.2 ”Composition of the Under—
graduate Council.’I This proposed change had been circulated to members of the University
Senate under date of March l, 1979. Professor Reedy amended one line in the proposed change
to delete the words "and the Arts” in the second paragraph of the proposal. The sentence
reads as follows:

 

"...combined areas of Literature and Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences”

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. There was no discussion and the
previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The motion on the proposal passed
unanimously. It reads as follows:

Background:

Because of Administrative reorganization, current Senate Rules
do not provide for representation on the Undergraduate Council by the
College of Fine Arts, Honors Program and College of Communications.
The Rules Committee has proposed the following changes, which the
Senate Council now presents for consideration by the Senate as a
whole.

Proposal: (add underlined portions; delete bracketed materials)

I. 3.3.2 Composition —— It shall consist of fourteen (14) members.
The chairman of the General Studies Committee shall serve
ex officio. Nine of the members shall be elected by the
faculty of Colleges, groups of Colleges or parts of
Colleges as follows:

One member from the combined areas of Literature and
Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences [.]
the College of Fine Arts, and the Honors Program.

9

 

 

 One member from the combined areas of Biological and
Physical Sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences.

One member from the Epmbined areas of the Social
Sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences [.] and the
College of Communications.

 

Implementation Date: Fall, l979.

The final item on the agenda was for discussion only. The Chairman said that the
Senators had the circulation from the Senate Council dated February 21, 1979, which gave a
brief background on the matter of the withdrawal policy and set forth in detail the proposal
from the Rules Committee which was sent to the Senate Council. The Senate Council did not
feel that it wanted to make a definite proposal without further discussion. The Undergraduate
Council has considered the matter as circulated and has presented its own special modifica—
tions. The Chairman added that nothing would be resolved at this meeting but hoped that it
might enable the Senate Council to present a proposal that would incorporate the wishes of
most of the Senators. The floor was opened for discussion.

Professor Gesund said that the whole problem of withdrawing was becoming incredibly and
needlessly complicated. He added that as one who believed in academic freedom he strongly
opposed to being told what grade to give at what time to what student. He said he had no
objection to a withdrawal policy, but the faculty member should have the prerogative to
assign the grade the student had at the point of withdrawal.

Professor Plucknett said that he wanted to point out that the withdrawal policy was not
a creature of the Rules Committee. He added that the Senate already had the one—half, one-
third but in the administration of the rule there were certain difficulties and the Rules
Committee was directing itself with only trying to simplify or address those difficulties.

The Chairman said that the point at issue was that the ”W” now means two different
things.

Professor Baer said that along with the proposed simplification he would like to suggest
another one. He said that it was his understanding under the current rule for withdrawal
and under the proposed change, the faculty member has no choice in terms of grades awarded
prior to midterm. He added that it seemed to him that the signature of an advisor or
instructor on a drop form was worthless. He suggested that a new withdrawal form be imple—
mented that would not require the student to go through the procedure of getting signatures.

Student Senator English said one of the problems with the current policy was withdraw—
ing during the last half of the semester. If a student had a valid reason for withdrawing but
was failing at the time, the student would receive an "E" and that grade would be included
in the grade point average. If the student were passing, the grade would be a "W”. Mr.
English did not think this was fair.

Professor Weil said that in response to Professor Baer's suggestion of advisors not
signing the withdrawal form that many times the conscientious advisors wanted to know when
the advisees dropped classes. As a faculty member, Professor Weil said that he wanted to
know who was in his classes. As to the proposal, he felt it was a fairly good one. He
said that he liked the idea of the different grade for those who withdrew early and those who
withdrew late.

 

 _5_

The Chairman said that under the present rule a student withdrawing during the first
third of the course there would be no record of enrollment. At the end of the first half
the student would receive a ”W” and after that a student would automatically receive an
"E" unless by petition a student would receive a ”W.” In Professor Plucknett's proposal
this would be removed and an "X" replace the ”W” and "WP” and ”WP” added. Dean Ockerman
said that it had not been too long since the ”X” had been used to signify "not in class”
and this might be confusing.

Professor Gesund moved that the withdrawal policy be sent back to the appropriate
committee in order not to have the one—third, one—half, etc. and submit a coherent with—
drawal policy to the Senate. The Chairman ruled him out of order.

Professor Kemp said that the withdrawal proposal had been considered by the Senate
for several years. It had been through the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
numerous times. He said that he agreed there was confusion but he did not believe the
policy should be junked. He added that he felt if the policy were rewritten there would
be adverse reaction from the student body because he thought the policy was rather equit—
able.

Professor Schrils passed out a recommendation from the Undergraduate Council which
reads as follows:

1. Change the meaning of "W” from ”withdrew passing” to ”withdrew."
2. Make no change in Senate Rule V.l.8.l.
Change Senate Rule V.l.8.2 to read:

(a) A student may withdraw from a class during the latter
half of the term upon approval by the dean of the

student's college of a petition certifying urgent
non-academic reasons including but not limited to:

I. Illness or injury of the student;
II. Serious personal or family problems;
III. Serious financial difficulties.

If such a petition is approved by the dean of the student's
college, the student is assigned a grade of ”W."

Professor Lienhard wanted an explanation why the proposal was not a substitutive change.
The Chairman replied that strictly speaking the proposal was a substitutive change in that
it involved approval by the Dean only and not the advisor. A Student Senator asked if
there was any difference in the computation of the grade point average in a "WP" and "WP.”
Dean Ockerman said that would have to be determined if any penalty value were attached
to the "WP" because there is a penalty attached to the ”E" grade.

Professor Gesund said that since he could not make a motion he would like to make a
plea for someone to reexamine the necessity of having two different things happening two
weeks apart. He added that why after the first third one thing is done and after the
first half a different thing. He urged the various Councils to consider the poor faculty
member, the poor student and the poor advisor who would be much happier with only two
different categories rather than three.

 

 A Senator said that he thought the proposal from the Undergraduate Council was the
best thing that had come along in a long time. He said it had been his experience with
legitimate late withdrawals they were more deteriorative rather than catastrophic. He
said he was supportive of the Undergraduate Council's recommendation. Professor
Bosomworth asked if the rules prohibited the recommendation being presented as a substi~
tute motion. The Chairman said that there was no motion on the floor.

One Senator said that he would like for the Senate Council to consider the Under—
graduate Council's recommendation. He said that the discussion had been on item number
three, and the value of item number one should not be overlooked. He added that number one
greatly simplified the grading procedure and made the withdrawal grade a much more honest
one.

Professor Westley said that presumably there was a withdrawal policy, but no determina—
tion has been made as to what penalties are attached to ”withdrew failing.” The Chairman
said that there was a policy now, but it has not been determined what value the ”NF" has.

Professor Lienhard moved that the Senate recommend the Undergraduate Council's proposal
to the attention of the Senate Council and ask the Council to return it as an action item.
The motion was seconded. The Chairman said that no action would be taken; that the pro-
posal would simply be sent to the Senate Council.

Professor Plucknett spoke against the Undergraduate Council's proposal. He said he
believed if he were a student failing most of his courses he could manufacture dire
circumstances and probably convince many of the Deans. He said that he was afraid it would
put a premium on students trying to do that sort of thing. He said the ”WP" would mean
the same as an ”E.”

Professor Marlatt pointed out that on page three of the original proposal the Rules
Committee suggested that the recommendation of the student's advisor and instructor be
omitted so there really was no difference between the proposal by the Undergraduate Council
and the Rules Committee so far as who approves. She asked if she were correct and the
Chairman answered in the affirmative.

Dean Sands spoke in favor of the Rules Committee's proposal if the ”X” grade were
changed to a ”W.” He was in favor of the ”WP” and ”WP” adding that it would be to the
student's advantage to have a ”WP” rather than a ”W” that doesn't give any information
at all. He said that students who were passing needed to have that shown.

Professor Reedy said that it seemed to him entirely appropriate in keeping with the
responsibility of the faculty members in an institution that section (a) of number three
have attached to it a statement that "approval by the dean of the student's college and
with the concurrence of the faculty member” so that there would be some kind of consulta-
tion between the dean, the administrative action, and the faculty member.

Professor Weil said that his reason for separating the recommendation to the Senate
Council and suggesting the Senate Council come back to the Senate with an action item was
so that the Council could discuss and propose some specific response to that point.

Professor Soule raised the question as to when a student experienced severe non—
academic difficulties was he required to drop all his courses or just one of his courses.
He asked what kind of extreme non—academic problems could justify dropping just one
course. The Chairman responded that the Senate could not address that question because
the rule simply stated "withdrawal from a class,” and it would be the problem of the
Dean of the College.

 

 _7_

Dean Royster said that he agreed that uniformity was needed, and he suggested giving
a "W” up to half way through the semester, ”WP” or ”WF” after the midterm. He said every—
one could understand that, and it was essentially the current rule and a simple system.

Professor Jewell said that he would like an interpretation of what the resolution
meant. He said that it seemed to him the consensus of the Senate was that before the
Council votes it should take a good hard look at the Undergraduate Council's proposal
but was the motion to urge the Council to do that or was the motion endorsing the
Undergraduate Council's proposal. The Chairman responded that his interpretation was
that it was a motion urging the Council to look at the proposal or not look at it de—
pending upon the strength of the vote.

Professor Skelland said that it seemed to him if a student were failing a course in
the first twelve weeks the situation would not change in the last half of the semester.
He said that students should become responsible for their actions even as undergraduates.
He suggested using Dean Royster's suggestion of one—half and one—half or one—third and
two—thirds.

A Senator said that he hoped the Council would take a look at all the discussion
because the policy should be looked at thoroughly. He suggested no mark at all during the
first third of the semester, drOp the one—sixth, go to the second third where there would
be a "W” standing alone, and the last one~third have ”WP" or ”WF.”

Professor Westley said that perhaps two different concepts should be considered and
process once instead of five times every time a student withdrew and having a different
criteria allowing a student to drop one course while continuing in others.

The Chairman stated that the Senate Council would be grateful for a count on all pro—
posals. The motion for the Senate Council to take a look at the proposal presented by the

Undergraduate Council failed with a hand count of 39 to 26. In a show of hands for the
guidance of the Council on the proposal from the Rules Committee there were 40 who opposed
and 18 in favor of the proposal.

The proposal which the Rules Committee presented reads as follows:

Background:

At its meeting on December 12, 1977, the Senate passed the
withdrawal policy under which the University now operates. This
policy permits a student to withdraw without record and without
prejudice during the first third of any course, to withdraw from
that point to mid—term with a mark of ”W", and to withdraw during
the last half of the term upon approval of a petition certifying
urgent reasons of a personal nature. Implementation of this policy
unavoidably caused confusion in some quarters, and the Rules Com-
mittee of the Senate was asked to submit an interpretation of the
rule for the guidance of the Senate and the academic community as
a whole. On December 14, 1978 the Rules Committee recommended the
following: I

1) That the dean, advisor and instructor in the course must
all agree on the appropriateness of the reasons for a
student's withdrawal during the last half of the term and
specified that the reasons must involve circumstances
over which the student has little or no control.

 

 2) That the ”appropriate grade” to be awarded a student
upon his withdrawal during the second half of the term
be either W or E and determined solely by the instructor.

The Rules Committee also found, however, that the ”W” rule as
passed continues to have a serious and as yet unaddressed source

of confusion: the student who withdraws between the end of the
first third and the mid—point of the term must in all circumstances
be given a ”W.” This mark is in no sense a grade or a report on
the student's performance; such a ”W" under the rule must be
awarded indiscriminately to all students——good, bad and indifferent.
The ”W” awarded as ”an appropriate grade” after mid—term, by con~
trast, is a report that satisfactory work has been done in the
course up to that point. In short, under the present rule, the
mark of ”W" may mean very different things depending upon when it
was awarded, and yet it must appear only as an unexplained ”W" on
the student's transcript. To rectify this inconsistency the Rules
Committee has submitted the following proposal to the Senate
Council which now forwards it to the Senate as a whole for dis—
cussion.

Proposal:

The Senate Rules Committee recommends the following changes
in the Senate Rules to the Senate Council relative to the ”drop”
policy.

V.l.8.l Any student may withdraw from any class before the
midpoint of the term. In order to withdraw, the student
must submit a completed withdrawal form to his or her
dean. The dean shall report the withdrawal to the
Registrar.

(3) Any student withdrawing during the first third of the
course shall be removed from the class roll, and no grade
or record of enrollment shall appear on the student's I
transcript.

(b) Any student withdrawing after the first third of the
course but before midterm shall receive a grade of [W] E.

(a) A student may withdraw from a class during the [last]
latter half of the term upon approval of the petition
certifying urgent non~academic reasons including but not
limited to:

I. Illness or injury of the student;
II. Serious personal or family problems;
Financial inability to continue at the University,
or;
Serious financial difficulties.
Call to military service].

 

 Such a petition [ should be recommended by the student's

advisor and instructor and] must be approved by the dean

of the student's college. The instructor must assign

[an appropriate grade] a grade of WP or WF. (For excep—

tion involving call to military service, see 2. 1.3 this

section) [(See l.3 this section) or a grade of P or W may
be assigned by the University Appeals Board (see Section

VI, 5.1.lb.)]

 

 

723': 7':

If these changes are adopted, W will have to be deleted from
the list of grades and X, WP and WP added. In addition, the Rules
will need changing relative to the grades available to be assigned
by the Appeals Board. ”W” will need to be replaced by ”WP” or
”X.” The Rules Committee did not discuss this change.

Dean Royster made a motion to have a I'W" up to the half of the semester and after that
a "WP” or ”WF." The motion was seconded. Professor Adelstein said that as he understood
it that would be out of order. He said that the spirit of the rule that was passed last
spring was one—third, one-sixth and one-half and his understanding was that nothing could
be done about that rule. In a straw vote for Dean Royster's motion, there was a hand count
in favor of the motion 47 to 9.

Motion was made to adjourn at 4:20 p.m.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary of the Senate

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTOV‘ KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

February 21, 1979

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting,

Monday, March 12, 1979. Withdrawal policy:
For Discussion Only.

Background:

At its meeting on December 12, 1977, the Senate passed
the withdrawal policy under which the University now operates.
This policy permits a student to withdraw without record and
without prejudice during the first third of any course, to withdraw
from that point to mid—term with a mark of ”W”, and to withdraw
during the last half of the term upon approval of a petition certifying
urgent reasons of a personal nature. Implementation of this policy
unavoidably caused confusion in some quarters, and the Rules Com—
mittee of the Senate was asked to submit an interpretation of the
rule for the guidance of the Senate and the academic community as
a whole. On December 14, 1978 the Rules Committee recommended
the following:

1) That the dean, advisor and instructor in the course
must all agree on the appropriateness of the reasons for
a student‘s withdrawal during the last half of the term

and specified that the reasons must involve circumstances
over which the student has little or no control.

2) That the "appropriate grade‘I to be awarded a student

upon his withdrawal during the second half of the term be
either W or E and determined solely by the instructor.

The Rules Committee also found, however, that the W rule as passed
continues to have a serious and as yet unaddressed source of confusion:

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2
Senate Agenda Item: March 12, 1979 Withdrawal Policy
February 21, 1979

the student who withdraws between the end. of the first third and the
mid—point of the term must in all circumstances be given a "W”.
This mark is in no sense a grade or a report on the student's per—
formance; such a "W" under the rule must be awarded
indiscriminately to all students--good, bad and indifferent. The
Wawarded as ”an appropriate grade” after mid—term, by contrast,
is a report that satisfactory work has been done in the course up
to that point. In short, under the present rule, the mark of ”W"
may mean very different things depending upon when it was
awarded, and yet it must appear only as an unexplained W on the
student's transcript. To rectify this inconsistency the Rules
Committee has submitted the following proposal to the Senate
Council which now forwards it to the Senate as a whole for discus-
Sion.

Proposal:

The Senate Rules Committee recommends the following
changes in the Senate Rules to the Senate Council relative to the
"drop" policy.

V. 1. 8. 1 Any student may withdraw from any class before
the midpoint of the term. In order to withdraw,
the student must submit a completed. withdrawal
form to his or her dean. The dean shall report
the withdrawal to the Registrar.

(a_) Any student withdrawing during the first third
of the course shall be removed from the class roll,
and no grade or record of enrollment shall appear
on the student's transcript.

(b) Any student Withdrawing after the first third

of the course but before midterm shall receive a
grade of [W] 93.

(a) A student may withdraw from a class during the
[last] latter half of the term upon approval of a
petition certifying urgent non—academic reasons in-
cluding but not limited to:

 

 Page 3

Senate Agenda Item: March 12, 1979 Withdrawal Policy
February 21, 1979

1. Illness or injury of the student;

11. Serious personal or family problems;
[111. Financial inability to continue at the University, or;]
1L1. Serious financial difficulties.
[1V. Call to military service].

Such a petition [should be recommended by the student‘s ad—
visor and instructor and] must be approved by the dean of the
student's college. The instructor must assign [an appropriate
grade] a grade of WP or WF. (For e