xt75736m3b5h https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt75736m3b5h/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1975-04-14  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, April 14, 1975 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 14, 1975 1975 1975-04-14 2020 true xt75736m3b5h section xt75736m3b5h .,—.- —. .«uvum-rcmu




‘ The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
April 14, 1975 in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Krislov presided.
‘ Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Gerald Ashdown, C. Dwight Auvenshine, Lyle
4%?» N. Back*, John G. Banwell*, Lisa K. Barclay*, Harry Barnard*, Charles E. Barnhart, ;
“4. Robert P. Belin*, Norman F. Billups*, Harold Binkley*, A. Edward Blackhurst*, 7 :?
Joan Blythe, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom*, Garnett L. Bradford, 3 £1
Sam Brown*, Herbert Bruce*, Joseph A. Bryant, Joseph Burch, H.
1 Stuart Burness*, John L. Butler*, Carl Cabe*, Jean D. Charron*, Michael Clawson,
Lewis W. Cochran, Frank Colton*, Bruce Combest, Ronda Connaway*, Clifford J.
r Cremers, Vincent Davis, Patrick DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, Stephen Diachun,
3 Bette J. Dollase*, Herbert Drennon, Vincent Drnevich*, Mary Duffy, Anthony Eardley,
Fred Edmonds*, Roger Eichhorn, Michael Etzel*, Robert 0. Evans*, Thomas Field,
Doane Fischer, Paul G. Forand*, Lawrence E. Forgy*, James E. Funk, Art Gallaher*,
Hans Gesund*, Joseph Hamburg, Bobby O. Hardin*, George W. Hardy*, Virgil W. Hays*,
Charles Haywood*, Andrew Hiatt, Beth Hicks*, Nancy Holland, Elizabeth Howard*,
\ Raymond Hornback, Hope Hughes, Roy K. Jarecky, Raymon D. Johnson, John J. Just,
{ Gregory Kendrick, William F. Kenkel*, William Kennedy, Paul K. Kim, James B. p w.
Kincheloe*, Sara Leech*, Gordon Liddle*, Arthur Lieber*, Donald Madden*, Paul ff ‘3
, Mandelstam*, James R. Marsden*, Joseph Mattingly, Michael McCord*, Susan McEvoy*, ‘1 'w
Em Randolph McGee, Marion McKenna*, E. Gregory McNulty, William Miles, George
1‘ Mitchell*, Joe Moore, David Mucci, Roger Nooe, Thomas Olshewsky*, Merrill Packer*,
[ Leonard Packett*, Blaine Parker*, Harold F. Parks*, Bobby C. Pass, Arthur
Peter, Carl Peter, Barbara Reed, Wimberly C. Royster*, Robert W. Rudd*, William
Sartoris, Kenneth Schiano*, Rudolph Schrils*, Robert Sedler, Wayne Shipman,
D. Milton Shuffett*, Pam Sievers, Sheldon Simon, A. H. Peter Skelland*, Herbert
W. Sorenson*, Earl L. Steele*, William Stober*, William Templeton*, Leonard
Tipton, Carl Tower, Harold Traurig, Kristin Valentine, Harwin L. Voss*, John
N. Walker*, M. Stanley Wall, Richard Warren, Kennard Wellons*, Paul A. Willis,
Miroslava B. Winer, Ernest Yanarella*, Fred Zechman*.




The minutes of the regular meeting of March 10, 1975 were accepted as

‘ The Chair recognized Dr. William F. Wagner for the purpose of presenting
\ a special order of business not on the agenda.



&% Dr. Wagner's remarks follow:


Each year we have a new face standing at this podium but for as ‘ ~;
long as I can remember, which has been quite a while, there has been one : ‘ ‘yt
[ person sitting here and every time we get into a hassle, he tells us what ‘
‘ we can or cannot do, and that is our Parliamentarian, Dr. Gifford Blyton.
, I understand that he has been sitting in this position ever since President
A Oswald asked him to serve in that capacity some 11 or 12 years ago.

Those of us in the College of Arts and Sciences have had the privilege
of Gif serving as our secretary and parliamentarian for 11 years and I
understand he did not miss a single meeting in those ll years. He must ‘
have a high level of tolerance. . My?


{ I guess Gif has decided he has had enough as he is retiring from
1‘! the University on July lst. I don't know whose business he will be
&%; running after that date but anyone who has given such faithful and dedicated
{ service to the Senate as he has deserves some expression of apprec1ation.
( So we have a cup we would like to present to him with our apprec1ation.

*Absence explained

 gym-«ammm skimfififi‘f‘v w-Mmmm‘“


3985 Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont

; '( "I The Senate gave an ovation to Dr. Blyton in recognition and thanks for his
7 ' " many years of faithful service.


Chairman Krislov reported on the following information items: ,
Item (a) is an announcement of the approval by the Senate Council

of the revised Calendar for the Medical Center for the academic year

1975—76. This revised Calendar will be included in the minutes. Under

our Rules, the Senate Council has the authority to approve it.


Item (b) is progress report on various academic programs. The
Ph.D. program in Health, Physical Education and Recreation has now
moved from the University to the Council on Public Higher Education. ‘
No objections were received by the Senate Council on the Ph.D. programs
in Philosophy and in Communications. They were, therefore, sent to
the President's Office. No objection was received on the bachelor's
degree program in Biology and it has been sent to Vice President Cochran's
office for implementation. The Council will circulate the newly approved
Dental Hygiene program, with the waiver for three (3) years of certain ‘@
Senate rules. If there are no objections to that program within ten 3
days, it will be sent to the Vice President of the Medical Center for
implementation. This is the status of the programs that were in our
possession. There are some others that may reach us during the summer
and we will move them as expeditiously as we can.

Item (c) is the Recognition Dinner and I now can give you the
details of that. It will be held at the Continental Inn on April 28th.
The bar will open promptly at 5:30 and dinner will be served at 7:30. The
bar is a cash arrangement. Tickets for the dinner are $6.00 and you
may obtain them from Dr. Packett, who is the Chairman of the Committee.


Item (d) is not entirely complete. It involves an announcement of
several changes in the Senate Council personnel. As you know, Professor
Eichhorn was appointed Acting Dean of the College of Engineering, and he
has resigned from the Senate Council. According to our custom, we then ‘
appointed Professor Rudnick to serve the remainder of his term. Professor 6”!
Rudnick was the next highest person in the recent election. Professor \'
Eichhorn's resignation as a Council member left vacant his position as
the Secretary and the Council elected Professor Fred Zechman as the
Secretary. We hoped to have completed the election of the new Chairman
for 1976 but we have not been able to do so. The Council will meet this ,
Wednesday to attempt to complete that task.



1‘ . ., -[‘-‘""Z,f

P‘s . . -
1C;: ”3 That brings me to item (e). The Committee Chairmen will be reporting
ltd I: in writing to the Council on their activities this year and we will cir—

3 Z ‘ culate those Reports to you.

; Item (f) is a follow—up to the Independent Study examination. The

l Council has asked the Committee on Special Teaching Programs to study

‘3’ g the Evening Class program. I think that study will probably get under way
i? next fall since they are presently working on the Independent Study Program. “ya

Lastly, I want to announce that this will probably be the last "
meeting of the Senate this semester. The normal meeting would be on
May 12th but we will not be in session. There is a possibility that some

 ' -.. ...... .____".___,_,m~_ . a _ _ . ._,.,.. ._‘,,.,.(.‘.....-.,v v .....‘..i..
1 ‘1] qth-D‘m‘MBJvIJI‘ "7‘? ”'9


Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont


I items will come through to the Council from the Medical Center, or from
‘ some of the Committees, that will require action. If that occurs,

@% we will call a meeting on May 5th, which will be the first day of finals.
- It will be very limited to just the items that have to be approved.

There is a possibility, for example, that the Department of Laboratory

Medicine will have to be approved in order that it may begin operation in

The revised 1975—76 College of Medicine Calendar, as approved, follows.

l975—Z§_Academic Year


July 21 Monday - Third year students begin rotations and register 5%
July 21 Monday — Fourth year students begin rotations 3?
(Pre—registered at end of third year) .f
‘ August 25—26 Monday and Tuesday — First year students — orientation and I
Am registration
W- ' August 27 Wednesday — First and second year students start classes }
I August 27 Wednesday — Second year students register fl
September 1 Monday — First and second year students — Labor Day Holiday 3?
November 27 Thursday — Third and fourth year students one—day Thanksgiving :1
Holiday ft
November 27—29 Thursday through Saturday - First and second year students — fl
Thanksgiving Holiday @
December 20 Saturday — Third year students start Winter Vacation é
(8:00 a.m.) :fl
December 20 Saturday — First and second year students start Winter Vacation 1}
after last examination ‘lfl
December 24 Wednesday — Fourth year students start Winter Vacation -M
(8:00 a.m.) 1?
“at January 2 Friday — Fourth year students return
‘ ‘ January 5 Monday — First, second and third year students return to classes
March 15-20 Monday through Saturday — First and second year students —
Spring Vacation
May 8 (noon) Saturday — First and second year students ~end of academic year
May 8 Saturday — University Commencement
June 3 Thursday — Fourth year students — end of academic year
(5:00 p.m.)
5 June 5 Saturday — College of Medicine Graduation Program ; ;
July 3 Saturday — Third year students — end of academic year ' _ 4
(8200 a.m.) ‘ 57‘

Chairman Krislov recognized Professor William F. Wagner for the purpose
Of moving the next item on the agenda.

On behalf of the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards and the
g5 Senate Council Professor Wagner moved the adoption of the proposed GUldEllnes for
l EnIOllment Policies, circulated to the faculty under date of March 28, 1975, to
become effective September, 1975.

 . ~v~-m".,,:, . ..,.,~..,....,..,__.,_..,....... ~41:.:m1.~hnflu.1:;‘.!¥ .1 1—»..._.‘.a.‘.-.-:'.~«c


Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont

:‘.W The Chair recognized Professor William Peters, Chairman of the Committee
‘ " on Admissions and Academic Standards, for the purpose of explaining the
proposal. Professor Peters' remarks follow: gag


In a letter which was dated January 30, 1974 President Singletary
stated to the Chairman of the Senate Council that he was hopeful the
Council would consider the matter of guidelines to be used relative to
requests or recommendations on enrollment policies. The Council, in turn,
up requested the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards, then
chaired by Dr. Jane Emanuel, to consider this charge. Dr. Emanuel for—
mulated a subcommittee to investigate the issue, initially. The members
who were appointed from the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
were Dean George Denemark, Dr. Ben Black, Mr. Robert Clement, a student
member, and myself to chair the subcommittee. Outside members included
Dean Ockerman, who had served as Chairman of the President's task group
on enrollment policies, and Dr. Nicholas Pisacano.

The initial task undertaken by the subcommittee was to collect
and review data. This included such items as a report, which was entitled 12v
"A Description of Entering Students at the University of Kentucky, 1972", ‘
which included such information as the fact that although nationally
52.6 per cent of University freshmen usually live more than 100 miles
from the University they attend, at the University of Kentucky that
statistic is 22.3 per cent. We also reviewed the report dealing with
the University of Kentucky task group on enrollment policies which made
several recommendations, among which was a recommendation that enroll—
ment control should be program by program. In addition, we reviewed
several of the already approved restrictive enrollment policies, such
as those for Education and for Architecture, to see what they involved,
what their rationales were, and also to look at perhaps possible omissions.
We looked at several monthly labor reviews in terms of job markets.
We reviewed literature concerning higher education as it relates to
admissions policies. We also reviewed the proposal for reorganization
of Arts and Sciences so that we would be aware of any possible changes in
academic structure which might relate to our charge.


‘3;?7.1‘ After our deliberation of the findings, in which we attempted to £3!
2 digest all of the data we had collected, we decided that we needed to

articulate this digestion and each member of the subcommittee was asked

to write an individual position paper. Each of us formulated an individual
position paper which was presented to the Committee. A critique of V
these individual position papers was made and we decided that our next step
was to write a draft that would put together the views of various members.
This went through several different revisions, as you can well imagine.

The final draft we called our working paper and that working paper was
disseminated within the University itself. For example, the President's

. Office received a copy; Vice President Cochran's Office received a copy; I
,1 \ 2 Vice President Bosomworth's Office also received a copy. The Committee, >
1;. ; l as a whole, then set forth to revise this working paper as it related to


‘ , the various responses that we received through the dissemination of the

i, -: working paper. And a discussion of the revision of the working paper was
1 5 made to the Senate Council. I am certain you may have read about that fiEA

'1 from time to time. The Committee then drafted a final report which you F

have before you. That, basically, consists of the procedures that we used.


.__... — -~-W1m-r~ ~ ~~""“""‘fi’-‘=f"“' "'7' ”if? .. _

Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont 3989

The high point of our rationale, which leads to the various recommendations
which we have made, perhaps could be summarized by saying that we feel

the University must remain accessible, that there must be clearly defined
program objectives —— these are essential in relation to admissions
policies —— that criteria must be disseminated, that career alternatives

for students are crucial, and, finally, that faculty commitment to advise
and to assist students, is paramount.

Those are some of the high points of the rationale which led to our
recommendations. I assume that each of you has carefully read the
document and we would be willing to respond to any questions you might have.

Extensive debate ensued directed almost entirely to paragraph 3. of the recommen—
dations. The principal positions taken were that we should examine our existing
policies; that a unit should be very careful of accepting as a principle the
right of a unit to use its perception of the job market as a criteria for the
number of admissions; that each academic unit should not be expected to

establish such a study —— only those units contemplating or that have established
restrictive admissions.

Chairman Krislov reminded the Senators that there is no existing policy
on enrollment guidelines and that what we presently have is a series of
gd_hgg actions taken at various times. The issue of guidelines became important
some two years ago when two colleges in the University asked for restrictive
enrollments and these requests were approved by the University Senate. He
stated that as a result of those requests and the actions by the Senate it
seemed proper that some general guidelines should be developed and what the
Senate had before it today were those proposed guidelines.

Professor Fletcher Gabbard presented an amendment to strike the phrase ”establish
a study to” and to substitute the word ”program" for the word "career” in
recommendation 3. so that it would read

3. Each academic unit should identify factors in program success
and should modify its program accordingly;

Following further discussion the Senate voted to disapprove the proposed

Professor Rey Longyear presented an amendment to replace the words ”academic
unit” with the words ”professional or pre—professional program” in recommendation
3. so that it would read

3. Each professional or pre—professional program should establish
a study to identify factors in career success and should
modify its program accordingly;

Following further discussion in which it became evident that there remained

a great deal of confusion concerning recommendation 3. motion was made to
refer the entire document back to Committee. After additional discussion
question was called and the Senate voted to stop debate on the motion to refer.
By a vote of 46 to 20 the Senate then disapproved the motion to refer the
document back to Committee.

The Senate then returned to consideration of Professor Longyear's amendment
which was still on the floor.






 m --n-.:m;..4..ur. “3155‘ xu‘m—a..._-...a -samuu- '0'


Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont

The Senate voted to disapprove Professor Longyear's amendment.

bottom of page 3 which reads "The Senate Committee on Admissions and f
Academic Standards, therefore, makes the following recommendations: . . ." “
to read as follows:

Professor Jesse Weil presented a motion to amend the document at the van


r The Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards,

{_ _ therefore, makes the following recommendations to apply to those

” academic units which either have limited enrollment or are contemplating
limiting enrollment:

i n7 The question was called and by a vote of 56 to eight (8) the Senate voted
'-;‘~ “ to stop debate on the amendment on the floor.

By a vote of 59 to eight (8) the Senate then approved Professor Weil's amendment.

i; : Question was again called. By a vote of 52 to 20 the Senate voted to stop

,1 debate on the motion on the floor, which was to vote on accepting the ,
g last paragraph at the bottom of page 3 and the five (5) recommendations %'
1' on pages 4 and 5.

By a vote of 49 to 24 the Senate voted to accept the proposed guidelines for
enrollment policies including the opening provisional statement. The

opening provisional statement and policy guidelines which were approved read
as follows:

The Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards,
therefore, makes the following recommendations to apply to those
academic units which either have limited enrollment or are contemplating
limiting enrollment:



l. Each academic unit should have clear objectives which allow
‘9‘: for differentiation by program areas within the academic unit;

1'4‘1 3 2. Enrollments should be controlled by program areas rather than
:1 ijl by larger academic units; fiah
. i , w



3. Each academic unit should establish a study to identify
factors in career success and should modify its program

\9 " 4. Any program proposal for enrollment limitation should include
“‘“ ‘ the following:

a. a rationale for enrollment limitations, including such
aspects as the job market projections (in Kentucky and in
the nation), College resources, predictors, of academic

y success in the field, the kind of student a given program

"> f ‘ needs (e.g. interest, criteria of accrediting societies),
1 ‘ and clear program objectives;


1 b. a system to adjust the enrollment limitations as a result 5&5
j ' of changes in student demand, institutional resources,
or the job market;

c. a process to inform interested high school students of the
criteria for admission into specific college programs;

 ...__-—....-Wm -rn~p-~uvfl'lnw:1fxnflr""""77'“"""'"""'""""‘PI"‘ - - ‘ """ ‘ " ' " " h ' I '


Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont 3991

d. a system to inform other academic units of admission
criteria and to help them advise students or improve
their course offerings for students electing that program;

. e. an effective advising system for counseling, directing,
and redirecting students accepted into the College program.

5. In view of increased restrictive enrollment policies, the
University should attempt to improve its student body by providing
information about undergraduate admissions to all Kentucky
high school students, particularly academically qualified
minority students and students with outstanding records in
scholastic work, creativity, and leadership.


Chairman Krislov recognized Dr. Levis McCullers, Academic Ombudsman, who
presented the following annual report to the Senate:

I am certainly glad it is raining today. This makes the description M ,
.. complete. Recently, Dr. Robe asked me about the qualifications for f if
fiu\ this job and I told him that in addition to all the marvelous things it ‘ '
‘ says in "Student Rights and Responsibilities”, you need a person who
enjoys walking across campus in the rain and the snow, seeing people
who don't want to see him, and then trying to carry on. I am sure
you don't want to see me but I am going to carry on anyway.

The first thing I want to mention is that in preparing this report,
which is an annual responsibility of the Ombudsman, I knew immediately }
that I was going to be in trouble and that you were probably going to ‘
be in for a surprise. As you may know, I am from the Department of (
Accounting and accountants are supposed to have a reputation for very :
careful record keeping. I discovered to my surprise, if not to yours, ,:
that my records are far less complete than those of my predecessors _ '3
who came from such Colleges as Law, History, Economics, and Pharmacology. ‘ i
So maybe I am in the wrong field. But I adopted the attitude that the 3
records were for my purpose in determining what had happened in a case,
and the disposition of that case. Therefore, I did not keep count
$5; of how many times I saw an individual, how many contacts it required to
H} resolve the case, et cetera. But I can tell you that in terms of total
numbers of cases I_have processed through last week —— and the way this ‘f 3 y
week is going, the number will change dramatically —— there were 188 cases ‘ 1'
for which I maintain records. This compares to 260 contacts by Dr.

; Diedrich last year, but of his 260 he identified 21 as non—academic and
51 which he dismissed, handled by phone, or sent the student back to
the faculty member —— or a net of 178. Based upon the difference in
record keeping I would suggest that we are running about the same volume
of business as last year.


/ I can also tell you that I have dealt with one or more cases in f 3N
every college, including the Graduate School and the professional ..,
colleges, except the College of Law. They managed not to have any
contacts last year, either. As expected, the College of Arts and Sciences
provided the most activity with 85 cases. The College of Business and

65‘ Economics was second with 23. They were also second last year and I

was informed that was why I was appointed — so I could straighten out

that College. We had the same number of cases this year. Other than

that I am not going to go through all the numbers in terms of each

of the Colleges but suffice it to say that I did have contact, at least

one case or more, with all of the Colleges.


:-1,‘f/'!:M‘/Ir'vfl‘}!/ 1:. (werfiw‘m \' E i=0“
















w;1:m&7!11“;“'f“'-mn, , x .W »_».l_. N N,“ _ _
Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont

One other observation about the numbers might be of interest. In
at least ten of the contacts, more than one student actually came to
see me and in several instances the student or students who came indicated
they were representatives of either a group of people or an entire class.
For example, two cases occurred last week when a group of students came
and said they represented 16 students and another group came and said
they represented 11 students. So the impact, in terms of the number
of students being serviced in one fashion or another by the office,
is difficult to assess.

Another aspect of the numbers which I find hard to describe, is
the volume of activity by the month. During July and August I had 29
contacts, which isn't really too heavy except when one is on a 10—month
contract. In September there were 19 contacts, 25 in October, and 18
in November. Then things began to pick up. In December, which for all
practical purposes is only three weeks, I had 29 contacts and in January,
again only about two and one—half weeks, I had 28 contacts. These two
months were by far the most difficult not only because of the volume
and the short months, but in December, like you, I had term papers and
final exams to grade and in January I had the preparation for a new
semester. I also should add in that context that many students and
some faculty are under the impression that the Ombudsman is a full
time position; that all I am supposed to do is sit there and wait for
them to come.

The volume of cases in December and January was such that it
took me until March to get caught up. Fortunately, the volume began
to decline such that in February there were 19 cases, and March was the
lightest month with 12.

I wanted to mention these numbers in order to give you a better
idea of the variable work load in the office of the Ombudsman. Clearly,
there are months when the job does not require much time. There are
other months when it requires at least full—time, and in terms of feeling,
it is much more than full—time. Several people have asked me if I
thought the Ombudsman should be made full—time. I have serious reserva—
tions about that. On the one hand I think it probably should, because
of the full—time disruption it causes. On the other hand, I am not at
all positive that there is enough activity throughout the year to warrant
it being a full-time position.

The next effort I made in developing this report for you was to
categorize the cases in what seemed to me to be the major areas. First
of all, as was no surprise, was the matter of grades which constituted
40 per cent of the cases. The grade discussions took all sorts of forms.
Some of them were concerned with simply changing a grade or getting
a grade changed on a particular project or particular report. Others
involved a situation where a student had been given an E when he had,
in fact, dropped the course but the drop did not get processed. So
there were a variety of things. The matters of whether the content
of the course ‘was specified at the beginning, whether there was a
syllabus prepared, whether or not the course corresponded to the syllabus,
were the kinds of issues that constituted 18 per cent of the cases.
Something that I lumped under the category of ”professor attitude” which
takes in a multitude of things, such as lack of interest, lack of coming
to class, constituted 13 per cent. Program or degree requirement changes




Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont

constituted seven (7) per cent of the cases; cheating, four (4) per

‘ cent; and miscellaneous 18 per cent. I won't bore you with the miscellaneous
dfigh but most of those were more interesting than the others.



f I also classified the cases according to their resolution. And be
1 sure you note that this is my opinion and not necessarily the opinion

of the student or the professor. But I think that approximately 60
per cent of the cases were favorably resolved and only 10 per cent were
unfavorably concluded. This leaves 30 per cent of the cases where either
we took no action, the student decided not to pursue the matter any
further, or the student decided to go back to the professor and I didn't
get any more followup.

Let me hasten to add that the 10 per cent unfavorable, when I had
indicated that 40 per cent of the cases involved grades, does not mean
that there was a mass changing of grades this year. Rather, the 10 per
cent of cases unfavorable is my personal view of cases where the outcome

‘ simply did not seem very satisfactory to me or to one or both of the
fifiga parties involved. I should also tell you that by whatever other measures
,‘ ‘ you might want to apply, in terms of failure, only one student became so

irritated with me that I was assured it would be a long time before that

, person returned to the Ombudsman for help. Furthermore, to date we have

had only one case referred to the University Appeals Board and that case
a was resolved before the Board had time to convene. So in terms of
‘ referrals or activity by the University Appeals Board, we have had none.

There are some additional data that I think I ought to share with

1 you. During the year only two faculty members, and in both cases they
, were part—time instructors, refused to see me. That didn't bother me too
[ much because I simply went to the next higher level of authority. Secondly, ~n
‘ I can honestly tell you that only two professors were rude to me. Again '
that is according to my interpretation. If others of you intended to be

rude, you were too subtle for me and I didn't recognize it. I am also
aware of only one student who came to my office fully intending to "use”
the office. We can talk about making use of the office but in this case
”A it was a matter of "using" the office. And he didn't use it very long. . l1
‘”' Unfortunately I became convinced after the fact, that one student had, .
indeed, in current terms, ”ripped me off" and I proceeded to convince ‘
I the professor such that I ”ripped him off". I never told the professor .
that I was convinced we had been "had” because the change had been 3 a
, appropriately made but, unfortunately, for the wrong reasons. ‘


.‘C;fi~.;._;- - .» -.~4

{ My general belief is that the students who have come to my office
r have been sincere. They have not always been correct. They have some—
‘ times been considerably mistaken about their rights; some friend has
misinformed them; some professor didn't exactly explain things properly,
et cetera. And sometimes they came about rather minor abuses. But I
am convinced they were sincere and that it did some good for them to come,
( even in those cases in which I did not take very positive action other than
{ listening to them and explaining their rights. I also was pleased with
the impression I got from students that they are indeed concerned about
fiflg being fair to the professor and that they do consider the impact of some
‘ of these accusations on the professor.


:(1. / MM //.I-:‘4:/: 721: r'r-Irrfi'v“ v





wnmnuflfl‘. “‘7‘“ “WW

Minutes of the University Senate, April 14, 1975 — cont

The Academy Awards last week gave me an idea for summarizing
some of the views I would like to convey to you about the office
of Ombudsman. I am therefore going to make some nominations for
my awards.

Greatest Frustration Award — That would go to those cases
where I firmly believed that the student had a valid complaint
but was afraid for me to pur