xt766t0gxh69 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt766t0gxh69/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1974-12-09  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, December 9, 1974 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 9, 1974 1974 1974-12-09 2020 true xt766t0gxh69 section xt766t0gxh69 g)




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, December
9, 1974, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Smith presided. Members
absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Ruth Assell*, C. Dwight Auvenshine*, Charles E.
Barnhart, Jackie Barry, Robert P. Belin*, Robert S. Benton*, Harold Binkley*,
Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom*, Garnett L. Bradford, Herbert Bruce*,
H. Stuart Burness, John L. Butler*, Carl Cabe, Michael Clawson*, Bruce Combest*,
Foy Cox, Clifford J. Cremers, James E. Criswell*, Tim Cunningham, Vincent Davis*,
Patrick P. DeLuca*, Mary Duffy*, Anthony Eardley, Robert 0. Evans*, Thomas Field,
Doane Fischer*, Thomas R. Ford*, Lawrence E. Forgy*, James E. Funk, Art Gallaher,
Jess L. Gardner, Claudine Gartner*, James Gibson, Ward 0. Griffen*, Elaine Grubbs,
George W. Gunther*, Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Jesse G. Harris, Allan C. Hauth,
Richard Hayes, Rita Hawkins, Beth Hicks*, Raymond R. Hornback, Patricia E. Horridge,
Eugene Huff*, Charles Hughes*. Charles W. Hultman*, Roy K. Jarecky*,
Raymon D. Johnson, James Kemp*, Gregory Kendrick, William Kenke1*,
William Kennedy, Paul K. Kim, James B. Kincheloe*, A. Virginia Lane*, Albert S.
Levy*, Gene P. Lewis, Donald Madden*, Donald R. March, Susan A. McEvoy*, Randolph
McGee*, Carolyn D. McKinney, William G. Moody, Alvin L. Morris, David Mucci, Roger
M. Nooe, Thomas M. Olshewsky*, Wimberly C. Royster*, Robert W. Rudd*, Kathryn
Sallee*, D. Milton Shuffett*, Pam Sievers, Brad Smith, Herbert Sorenson, Don Soule,
Earl L. Steele*, William Stober*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Sherrell Testerman, Leonard
P. Tipton*, Harwin L. Voss*, M. Stanley Wall, Daniel L. weiss, Kennard W. Wellons,
Rebecca Westerfield*, Constance P. Wilson*, Miroslava B. Winer*, William W.
Winternitz, Randy Wynkoop, Robert G. Zumwinkle*.

The minutes of the meeting of November 11, 1974 were approved as circulated.
Chairman Smith made the following remarks to the Senators:

There are a number of items to report to you from the Chairman's Office.
Perhaps the one that has the most pleasure associated with it is to remind
you that tomorrow afternoon from 4:00 to 7:00 o'clock the Senate will be
hosting its annual reception for the Board of Trustees. In addition, the
guests at that meeting will include the officers of the Senate, the Record—
ing Secretary, the Parliamentarian, the Secretary, the Sergeant—at—Arms, and
so on. You are all cordially invited to come and participate. You will have
an opportunity to meet with Board of Trustees members if you have not met
them before, or to renew old acqauintances with them. In the past it has
been a very successful event. In order to defray expenses there will be
a modest fee of $3.00 a head which provides you with several hours of free
beverages, rather considerable hors d'oeuvres, and, of course, some of the
finest company available in the institution. So we encourage all of you to
join us tomorrow afternoon.

In looking over our agenda for today, and those documents which have
begun to pile up, the Senate Council has determined that it will be necessary
to have a meeting of the Senate in January. The only other alternative is
to let things continue to pile up and end up with two or three meetings
in April and May. Therefore, I am announcing at this time, and you will
receive written notice, that there will be a special called meeting of the
University Senate on Monday, January 20, 1975, at the usual time and place.

There are a number of items in the works that I would like to inform

you of, simply to keep you up to date. Standard Nine which you have pre—
viously received will be coming back to you with appropriate modifications;

*Absence explained








. H




Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 — cont

we have received from the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee a

report dealing with the general question of the philosophies and policies

of this institution concerning admissions and enrollments, and that will
be coming to you in the future; the A & S reorganization is progressing;

and there are a rather substantial number of committee reports of one kind

or another -— changes in the Rules, or policy positions —— in addition
to what we have on the agenda today. As a result, this is the kind of
thing that goes into the reasons why we are having a special meeting.

Since the last meeting the Senate Council has been fairly busy. Among

other things, it is a pleasure to report to you that, with the very able

assistance and rather massive work of our Committee of Associate Deans, we
are in the final stages of completing an advising booklet which will contain

a one or two—page description of every program in the institution as

presently officially approved, and will include information on the number
of hours, courses, other than those with common numbers, and so on, from

the Community College System that will transfer back to this campus

and be given specific credit or substitution credit in degrees or degree


We have met with the Community College Senate Council at a social
event where we discussed generally matters of mutual concern. We have

received and transmitted to committees a number of reports, most notably,

the report on minorities, prepared by Mr. Gaines for the President; and

the Council Office has recently completed, and will be submitting to the
President within the next few days, a summary report of the status of all

proposed graduate programs -— where they are in the procedure between
the graduate faculty and the Council on Public Higher Education —— and

what we will be working out with the President later this month are details

on exactly where we stand and where these programs are going.

Most of you have probably received your ballots. For the record, I
would report to you that we have completed another round in the election

being conducted to select a faculty member for the Board of Trustees.

The original ballot was sent out to you with six names. Nobody received

a majority vote on that ballot. The three individuals receiving the
highest plurality of votes were Professors Brewer, Sears, and Sedler.
The second ballot has been issued with those three names on it and you
should have received that. The deadline for receipt of those ballots
by the Secretary of the Senate is Thursday, December 12, at 4:00 p.m.
We will continue to keep you informed when that election is completed.

There is one other item to call to your attention and, hopefully,
ask you to call to the attention of your colleagues. We do this every
year and every year we still have problems, namely, the fact that the
University Senate has a number of rules and regulations pertaining to
final examinations. If you are giving a final examination where it is
appropriate in your course, you are supposed to give it at the time
scheduled by the Registrar. It can be moved but you have to have the

agreement of the students involved, the department chairman and the Dean,

and to check with the Registrar. There are pragmatic reasons for doing

that sort of thing. Also, we have recently passed some rules and regula-

tions dealing with the situation where the student has more than two
examinations on a given day. In that particular instance the student





. _ _ ~.-_.~nmvny-n:xnm'-'N

Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 — cont 3°26

has the privilege of having the examination with the highest catalog number
rescheduled. Where two exams share common course numbers, the one whose
departmental prefix is first alphabetically will be rescheduled. So you
are strongly encouraged, insofar as possible, to be consistent with the
Rules of the University Senate in this particular regard.


This is the end of the official report. This is my last opportunity
to preside over this body and I thought I might take a few minutes of your
time to transmit to you a few of my own comments and thoughts looking back :
over the year just past. i

First of all I would like to say that it has been a privilege, an
honor, and an education to serve in this office. I have learned a lot. I
suppose it is impossible to sit in this office and ever be the same again.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to pass some of that on to you. There are
a lot of people to thank. The Senate is a large and complex body. There
are a log of people who contribute to its work besides the person who
stands up front here. I just happen to be the visible part. Certainly,
the whole Senate Council puts in a number of hours a week attempting to
address issues on behalf of the faculty. Notable among that group, all of
whom are hard—working, are my successor, the Chairman—elect, Professor
Krislov, and those individuals who have served as secretaries of the Senate
Council, Professor Eichhorn and Professor Wilson. There is another unsung
body of heroes that does a fantastic amount of work for which it doesn't
receive any public image or credit and I would like to thank these members,
personally, and on your behalf. These are the Committee Chairmen. A
number of them come to mind. All of them work hard. But a few of them
have been grossly overburdened. One thinks of Sid Ulmer, Ray Cox, and
Harry Barnard on the Rules Committee. They recodified the whole Rules of
this body, constantly working with very complex material. One thinks of
Jane Emanuel and Bill Peters of the Admissions and Academic Standards
Committee who are constantly reviewing Rules, reveiwing studies, and, while
they are at it, conducting major policy studies; Betty Rudnick of the
Student Affairs Committee, who is involved in representing the faculty
and this body with the Student Affairs Division of this institution; Willis
Sutton and the General Studies people dealing with very complex issues that
still need to be addressed continually; an unsung bunch of heroes that
you don't hear much about: John Robertson, Chairman, and some 16 Associate
Deans, the Assistant Vice President of the Community College System, and
several representatives of the Registrar's Office who meet about once a
month with me and other individuals on the Senate Council and help us
in a variety of problems. All of these people, and many other chairmen
who have not had the casework load, are what really make this body tick.
And insofar as it accomplishes anything on behalf of the faculty, they
are perhaps the ones to thank. I certainly could not have done whatever
we accomplished this year without their assistance. We may have made some
mistakes but whenever this has happened, it has been my fault. So I would
like to say personally and on behalf of my colleagues "Thanks to all of you."

There are two or three other things I would like to say about the
Senate and about this University and I have said a number of them before
in smaller groups. As nearly as I can determine, this Senate, and its
associated Councils and committees, constitutes what is legally one of the
most powerful faculty governance systems anywhere in this country. That is












Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 — cont

not to say there aren't other faculties who, individually and effectively,

wield power on their institutions. They do. But in terms of the formal
structures that exist of legally delegated authority and responsibility, gi.
this body and its components constitute one of the most powerful and, as
nearly as I can determine, despite our internal problems, most effective
governing systems anywhere in this country. We have a problem though. We
don't use it very effectively. It is too easy to sit back and not read

the documents or listen to the committee reports, or something else, and
then say "The Senate is out to get us." "The Senate did this to us.” It

is interesting. It depends on which side you are on at the moment. Either
the Senate has helped you get something done or the Senate has jumped on
you —— depending on how you want to look at it. But this Senate, its
Council, its committees, are the legally—constituted and powerful voice

of the faculty in this institution. So far as I know, it has been the
attempt on my part and that of my colleagues, the Council, and the Committee
Chairmen, to speak for the faculty. We are accused of not doing that
occasionally. I would suggest to you that you look at the record. As

an example, less than 30 hours after we received a petition from a group p\
of Senators dealing with an issue, the Krislov Recommendation, we had £5,
met with the President, he had frozen all the actions he had taken pursuant ‘
to our earlier recommendation, and this item was scheduled on the agenda

for this meeting. This is a body which has a structure which can move ~—

it can move very effectively -- in the interests of the faculty.

I think there are some general comments about the institution that
can be made. And I think I would leave you with one word perhaps and that
word is "different." If there is one thing I have become aware of over the
year in looking at this institution, it is how complex it is. How many
different objectives or different components it has. And, given that we
have different objectives or goals in various places, how many different
ways there are of attempting to gain those goals or objectives. I think
there is too great a féeling that somehow because somebody else is doing
something different from what we are in unit X, or Y or Z, they are bad.
Or that they are good and we are bad. This is a pretty fine institution
and we are pretty good at most of the things we do. We are simply
different. We should spend a little less time in worrying about the
fact that because someone else is different from us, that makes him bad
or, alternatively, makes him good and makes us bad, and, simply realize
he is different. He has different objectives, different criteria, and
different ways of evaluating.


And finally, to pick up on the last sentence I just made, we are pretty
good by any criteria you want to pick: numbers of publications, Ph.D.
production, where our students go, and what they do. I came to this in—
stitution 13 years ago. It was less than half its present size; there were
considerably fewer than 100 Ph.D.s per year; it had less graduate programs;
far less extramural support; far less buildings. It was known or had been
known to that time as "The Country Club of the South.” It isn't anymore.

By any criteria you pick, this institution ranks in the top few institutions

in the country. There are individual differences here and there, strong

points and weak points, but we are good. To steal a phrase for the moment, r
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Some of us who have been fl;
around a long time and have watched things go by are afraid our standards '
will slip, we are afraid our quality isn't good enough, we are afraid we

don't quite measure up. I have come to the conclusion that we don't need




.flww‘m‘“Tum“.......,..ww.~....m...,..~~..4~v. . . w-wv- -‘~ u“-:uv V"

Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 — cont 3928

to have those worries. The question is "How good, how high, how far?"
Because, by all the external criteria, we are pretty good. We have made

it past the hurdles we are worried about. Our only question now is

whether we are going to be Number One or Two or Three or Ten or Twelve,

in this country; not whether we are going to be in the top few dozen any
more. We are good, we are powerful, we are moving, we are progressive, and
all of us in this room and the rest of our colleagues have been a part of
making this institution something today that is far different than the one
13 years ago. We should each take some pride in our accomplishments and we
should each continue to go forward with considerable faith.i11what 10 or 12
years have demonstrated: the fact that we are making progress, that we know
where we are going, and that we will continue to make progress.

Again, it has been a pleasure to serve. Thank you for the opportunity.
Best wishes and good luck and I hope all of us will look forward to more
years of continued success at this institution.

The first item of business on the agenda was a motion placed on the agenda
over the signatures of ten Senators requesting that the Senate reconsider Recommen-
dation 5 of the Krislov Report.

Chairman Smith then called on Professor Paul Eakin, Department of Mathematics,
to make a motion. Professor Eakin expressed appreciation to Chairman Smith and
the Senate Council for the alacrity with which this was handled. He indicated
that editorially he wished to remove the word "dangerously" from the resolution
as it was circulated to the faculty under date of November 27, 1974. He then
read the Petition, as follows:

Acting on.Recommendation 5 of the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to
Evaluate Tenure and Promotion which was passed by the Senate on April
22, 1974, President Singletary issued a July 9, 1974 memorandum on
"Establishing Standards for Performance." After serious consideration
of the implications of this directive we are compelled to ask the Senate
for a careful reconsideration of the recommendation. We feel that the
Senate erred by not being much more careful in defining precisely what
purpose these standards are intended to serve. We feel that the purposes
as defined and implied by both the Singletary memorandum and the original
resolution are subject to different levels of interpretation. We feel
that as faculty members we cannot in good conscience participate in the
articulation of these written criteria and standards unless there is a
clear understanding of their purposes and implications. In addition, some
of us feel that there are compelling philosophical grounds upon which to
base a motion to rescind the original Senate recommendation.

We urge the University Senate to adopt the following resolution:

"Whereas Recommendation Five of the Report of the Ad Hoc
Committee to Evaluate Tenure and Promotion as amended and
passed by the Senate on 22 April, 1974 is ambiguous, the
University Senate hereby rescinds its adoption of that recommen—
dation and respectfully requests of the President of the
University that he suspend all actions taken pursuant to the






 . - ‘ Wu:- my mam-1 «w ,,r,,,1..,-..._ .l. n‘trazmAq-dxisx‘lfl1-“,‘3—63.


3929 Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 — cont

l Dr. Eakin stated that the signers of this petition and those who agreed with the

signers, did not, in any way, wish to impugn the motives of Professor Krislov,

jg President Singletary, or the people who voted for this recommendation but

51 that they felt the document had an identity of its own that was totally in— a“.
3 dependent of the motive of those who passed it; that they felt the recommendation 4
T was ambiguous, one evidence being the attempts by various departments to comply
l with it; that the attempts of the departments had run a gamut of different inter—

pretations, some being very rigid, others claiming that they had interpreted

it in accordance with the Governing Regulations; and that if the people who

passed it felt that something was necessary, they should be much more specific

about their intentions and that they should bring forth to this body a much

more well-defined recommendation than that that was passed.

Professor Sedler rose to speak in support of the motion on the floor to rescind
Recommendation 5. He stated that his first reaction in the initial consideration

of the Recommendation had been that it was a relatively innocuous recommendation

that might provide some guidance to incoming faculty members; that he had

approached it from the perspective of one who was serving on the Social Sciences

Area Committee; that he had determined that it would impose no possible legal
liability on the University since its standards are sufficiently ambiguous; $55
that universities have broad discretionary powers relating to appointments,
reappointments, and tenure decisions. He stated further that his primary

concern had been that the recommendation was not intended to dilute the

standards that the Area Committees had theretofore been applying; that with

respect to the suggestion that it would inform the area committees of the
appropriate criteria, standards, and minimal levels of performance in the various
academic areas, he had not been aware that there was a problem at least in his

Area Committee; that he had thought the University standards were very clear;

that his Area Committee had had no difficulty with the appropriate disciplines,
disparate as they were, in identifying what were the standards; but that the

more he had read the various points that had been written concerning the attempts

to apply the recommendation, the more he had considered the question; that it

seemed to him the term "dangerously [before its deletion] abmiguous", was well
stated; that when one spoke of minimal standards but people were expected to

exceed them, one was creating an inherently unworkable document because,

basically, there would be no standards at all or they would vary tremendously

in content and that this would create a great deal of confusion and disappointment fl.
So, on further reflection, he wished to join in the proposal that the recommen— “
dation be rescinded.





President Singletary spoke to the Senate as follows:

There are several comments I would like to make. First of all, I
wish to call your attention to that part of the motion which was just
read that calls upon me to do something I have already done, which is
to suspend all action. You may leave it the way it is. It doesn't
matter. If you want to ask me to go on and do what I have already done,
that is fine. The fact is, it has been suspended and I want to assure
you, as you consider this, that it is going to remain suspended until
some clarification comes out of this body as to what you intended or
what you meant and what it is that you would like to pass on to me in the
way of an expression from this group. A”

I want to say some other things that I think need to be said. I
have read some but not all of the great amount of paper work that has
been generated about this particular issue and I am amazed at a number



3D. “’




.ent . m

,,,,, ~nnnv~uv~vnw=¢unmw~n>t‘rh“"" "”"'""""'-I"' ' ' """"" ’ " ‘ ' '

Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 — cont 3930

of things. I think I would like to comment on a few but I would like

you to be aware of the mechanics of this. The report that came from an
§d_hgg_faculty committee to the Senate Council -— which I had several
discussions with the Senate Council about, and which later came to this
floor without substantial debate and certainly without significant vote —-
could leave one in my position with the assumption that the faculty was in
favor of this. I want to make it clear to you that at the time I acted,

I acted on the assumption that I was doing something —— and I want this
point clear —— it was something I was not particularly keen about. I will
come back to that. It appeared to me that I may have been the only person
on the campus that had any reservations about it although I think Professor
Cox and maybe a few others did have some concerns. Nonetheless, we issued
a set of instructions to the two concerned Vice Presidents, and, through
them, to the operating units, attempting to implement what we understood
was the faculty's wish. Then a very interesting thing happened. "0n

the way to the office" I began to get some very interesting comments from
people. I got a number of telephone calls, conversations of one kind or
another, several letters from departments that I think expressed very sen-
sible concerns, the petition which you have read that did not come to me
but I did see a copy of, all indicating that there was considerable con—
cern, on the part of the faculty, about what the faculty wanted. And

this was my reason for immediately suspending the action up to then because
it was not clear to me just exactly what the faculty did_want.

My own position is simply this and I want you to understand it. As
of this moment, or up to the time I suspended it, I thought I was doing
what you wanted. It appears that there is some question about whether
you want it or not. I now request that whatever else you do today, clarify
What it is you want and then let me consider how we can do it.

In the various expressions several things came through. Some were
very profound expressions of concern because they agreed with the ones I
had originally. There were some others that were pragmatic and practical
all the way to one Chairman saying to me ”My people just say that they
can't do this and they are not going to do it." And that presents an
interesting situation. Another one said to me "We have already done it."
Another professor said to this gentleman "Well, what did you do about that
part where you specify how much research you have to do?" His reply, I
believe, was "We put in there that the research required for promotion or
tenure will be what this department determines that standard will be." It
seems to me that we could save ourselves a lot of writing if that is done.
What I am saying is that once the concern was known, we did stop any further
movement until this could be placed on the agenda. There was one concern,
though, in some of the correspondence —— and this is really what I want to
make known to you —— that suggests that somehow, after all of this has
worked out, there is some insiduous plot, on the part of the administration,
to lay hold on the promotion and tenure area. There are many who say that
we already have that. What I wish to say to you, plainly and unequivocally,
is this. The administration position -- and I want you to use this as a
background against what you did —— is that we are willing, pretty generally,
to consider what you want done. This is clearly a faculty matter. It
ought to originate in this body, and it ought to be postulated in this group.
I want to say to you that no member of this administration has had any deSigns
on anything. I want to back away from that and say a kind of personal
thing. When I met with the Senate Council before this document ever came





« :1





‘1"“f"i‘M-"flmx‘wumxrrw Ahuwaumfl.


Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 - cont

to this floor, I had reservations about it, as Stan Smith was good enough

to point out to you in an earlier document that he distributed. My

concerns were then what they are now. I think that minimum standards

tend to become the standards very shortly. I think still further, and “a.
this is the philosophical objection I have, that there is a drift or \J
a trend to want to be more and more specific, to get things written

down with a degree of specificity, and that while it may be desirable

in some ways, it can also be very undesirable in others, because whether

you like it, or whether I like it, or whether anybody likes it, univer—

sities are places where people make lots of judgments about other people

and I underscore judgments. I am not going to pretend that it is fool—proof.

I am not going to pretend that there cannot be cases of abuse. But we d9

have procedures for dealing with those and I want you to understand what

the administrative view is.

Some sidelights came out that I want to touch on before I sit down.
I am told that this body is not representative of the faculty. The
Senate passed this; the faculty didn't. I find that I have no choice
but to assume that as long as this Senate is elected by the faculty,
it is the representative body of the faculty. For those who believe “a
that this body is not representative of the faculty, whether they are
Senators or not —— and I assume there are some non—Senators here —- let
me say that any solution for that problem resides in the faculty itself,
and it runs to two things: pay more attention to the elections when
they take place; pay more attention to the business that comes on the
floor of this body. It really won't work for it to come down to what,
in many ways, is sort of titillating but is also mind—boggling —— the
thought that one of the men, whom I really know well and value on this
faculty, said to me: "We expect you to protect us from the Senate.”
I want to tell you exactly what I think. I think this is a matter
between some members of the faculty who are not on, or may be on the
Senate, and some other members of the faculty who are on the Senate. I
see this as a faculty matter and I urge you not to drag the old business
of your "oppressive administration” into this. I wish you would consider
what you want and don't speculate about what I or "my minions back there”
want. We are willing to hear what ygu_want. And whatever else you do,
please address yourself to the fundamental question, that being: Do you A‘
want to be more specific now in trying to state the standards for pro—
motion and tenure or not? I call to your mind that you have, already
in existence, a document that I am proud of, in the institutional sense,
and it was written by a faculty committee of this body. It's a very
fine statement. The argument before you is not whether we have something
in writing about promotion and tenure. It is whether you are going to
take portions of that particular document which already address these
questions, and make those sections more specific. I did not like it then.
I do not like it now. I have made it a point —— and some of you don't
like this —— not to come on this floor and tell you during your debates what
I think or what I am going to do, because I think it is not very sporting
to come down here and argue with you about something that will then come
to my office for me to deal with in another context. I would not have
made this statement now about this particular thing except for the fact
that there is a lot of misinformation being circulated.

There is an issue in front of you and it is a very simple one.
This Senate has taken an action. Some people do not think it was a
wise action and they want it rescinded. And that is what you ought to





, _ _,...,...,,“,, ,nwmmm.sw...,.‘,..._~...—w.,~.,V .. . . V NW. “NW,

Minutes of the University Senate, December 9, 1974 - cont 3932

address yourselves to. If you vote to rescind it, good. It will drop.

If you vote to go ahead with it, then I will give consideration how to

do that in some way where a memorandum I write will not, in fact, become
the "bone of contention." I really want you to know that I had no in—
tention in that memorandum except to get this thing started. The language
in my memorandum that troubled some people had to do with the phrase that
minimum standards should be exceeded in some if not all cases. I wish

to tell you that this language is directly out of the tenure and promotion
document that we already have. There is nothing new, startling, or
subversive in it. The real question is "Do you want to be more specific?"
All of those other arguments