xt76t14tmt3s https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt76t14tmt3s/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1978-04-10  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 10, 1978 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 10, 1978 1978 1978-04-10 2020 true xt76t14tmt3s section xt76t14tmt3s UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


March 24, 1978

Members , Univer sity Senate

The University Senate will meet on Monday, April 10, 1978
at 3:00 p.m. in the Court Room, Law Building.



Approval of the minutes of the March 13, 1978 University
Senate meeting.

Chairman' 5 Remarks

Report from ad hoc Committee to Study Ethics and Academic
Responsibilities: Dr. Nicholas Pisacano, Chairman.

Report from Academic Ombudsman: Dr. Frank Buck.
Action Item:
a) Recommendations from the Senate Committee on

Academic Organization and Structure. (To be circulated
under date of March 29, 1978.)

Elbert W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in regular session at 3: 00 p.m. , Monday, April ID, 1978,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Paul Oberst, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Roger B. Anderson, C. Dwight Auvenshine*, Lyle N. Back*, Michael
A. Baer*, Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Brad Beck, Jack C. Blanton,
Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth’k, Joseph T. Burch, Gail Burrows, Joe B.
Buttram*, Charles Byers*, Bradley Canon, Linda Chen*, Donald B. Clapp, Craig Clark,
Lewis W. Cochran*, Glenn B. Collins*, Ronda S. Connaway, Samuel F. Conti, Raymond
H. Cox, Marjorie A. Crandall, Donald P. Cross*, M. Ward Crowe, Patrick P. DeLuca*,
David E. Denton*, Donald F. Diedrich, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Marcus L. Dillon*, Joseph
M. Dougherty, Anthony Eardley, W. W. Ecton*, Roger Eichhorn, Jim Elder*, Jane
M. Emanuel*, Donald A. Falace*, Rick Faust, Chris Fetter*, James E. Funk, R. Fletcher
Gabbard, Art Gallaher’k, Joseph H. Gardner, Abner Golden*, Andrew J. Grimes, Joseph
P. Guiltinan*, Merlin Hackbart, Joseph Hamburg, Andrew J. Hiatt, Raymond R. Hornback,
Eugene Huff*, Charles W. Hultman*, Donald W. Ivey*, Malcolm E. Jewell, Michael
Kennedy, James A. Knoblett’k. Mark Koopman, Stephen Langston, Richard S. Levine,
Thomas P. Lewis, Austin S. Litvak*, Jim Lobb, Rey M. Longyear*, Donna March,
Marcus T. McEllistrem’F, Susan A. McEvoy*, Marion E. McKenna*, William G. lVioody*,
Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Ronda S. Paul*, Bobbie G. Pedigo, Alan R. Perreiah*, Phillip
Phillips, Jean Pival, William K. Plucknett, Billy Renner, JoAnn Rogers, Jim ROWe,
Wimberly C. Royster*, Robert W. Rudd*, Ramona Rush*, Pritam S. Sabharwal", Patrick
J. Sammon*, Mark Saurer, John S. Scarborough*, Jo Schladale, Rudolph Schrils*,
John Serkland, D. Milton Shuffett*, Gerard E. Silberstein, Otis A. Singletary‘t, John
T. Smith*, Stanford L. Smith, Marjorie S. Stewart*, Jennifer Stiles, John P. Strickland,
Willis A. Sutton, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Leonard Tipton, Paula Totten*, Harwin L.
Voss , John N. Walkeri’“, M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace, Harry Wheeler, Constance
P. Wilson*, William G. Winterl‘, Judith Worell*, Fred W. Zechman*, Robert G. Zumwinkle

The minutes of the regular meeting of March 13, 1978, were accepted as circulated.
Action Item

A. Resolution Against Increase in Out~of-State Tuition
Motion passed.

II. Senate Council Activities and Informational Items
A. Action Item for April 10 Senate Meeting Postponed
B. Committee on Review of Senate Committee Structure and Operations Appointed
C. May 1978 Graduation List

*Absence explained


D. Senate Committee Chairmen Reports for Spring 1978

E. Item of New Business
111. Reports to the University Senate

A. Report from Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Ethical Climate: Dr. Nicholas J. Pisacano,
Associate Dean for Allied Health, Education and Research

B. Report from Academic Ombudsman: Dr. C. Frank Buck

Chairman Oberst summarized the Senate Council activities and informational items
as follows:

The action item for the meeting of April 10 was to be recommendations from the
Senate Committee on Academic Organization and Structure. The Council decided
to hold the item and put it on the agenda for the May 8 meeting. It is a report
proposing a Senate Committee on the analysis of resource allocations. It has to
do with questions of impact of budget allocation on education.

The Committee on Review of Senate Committee Structure and Operations has been
appointed. The members are: Robert Ogletree, Chairman; Richard Hanau, John
Lienhard, William Plucknett, Jesse Harris, another faculty member and a student.

Copies of the May 1978 Graduation List are in the Senate Council Office for your

The Seventh Annual Recognition Dinner for retirees is April 10 with 150 guests
planning to attend. The reception is at 5:30 p.m. and dinner at 7: 30 p .m.

The Senate Committee Chairan should submit any written reports they plan for
this Spring by April 17. The Senate Council will meet on April 19 and if any of
the reports demand Senate Council action and require circulation, they will have
to be sent by April 24.

There was an item of new business which was circulated at the beginning of the
meeting. It was taken up following the two reports.

Chairman Oberst asked Dr. Nicholas J. Pisacano, Associate Dean for Allied Health,
Education and Research, for his Report of the Senate Council Ad Hoc Committee on Academic
Ethical Climate.

Dr. Pisacano spoke to the Senate as follows:
Before giving you the actual report of this ad hoc Committee, I would

ask your indulgence in order that some background information might be



From the very outset of the creation of this Committee, the chairman
has been very reluctant to accept this task for several reasons. The most
important factor which weighed heavily against my chairing this Committee
was my ability-~or the lack of ability-~to perform effectively, not so much
for lack of interest in the topic, but because of time constraints. Secondly,
such a report, whether good or bad, posed the question in my mind that
the hours devoted to this would be in vain and would be better spent in
productive pursuits, or better, in total relaxation. I say ”in vain“ be—
cause we are all aware of the history of such ad hoc reports; they, at best
are most often relegated to the archives with no palpable effect on the

It turned out, however, that I assumed the chairmanship of this ad hoc
Committee only out of my deep respect and affection for Mrs. Connie
Wilson, who, at the time, was chairman of the Senate, and Drs. John
Stephenson and Frank Buck, all of whom felt that such a report should
be presented to the Senate. Her sincerity of purpose and dogged idealism
resulted in my submission. A committee of some of the finest people I
have ever worked with was constituted, most of whom I have never worked
with before or even had met.

The Committee's first question was what would happen to such a
report. Their misgivings were about the same as mine. They were pre-
sented with the charge and were assured that regardless of the final
disposition of the report, it would represent an attempt to present some

principles of ethics or moral behavior that needed ‘9 be said, and that

we would meet only a few times, devoting no more than one hour for each
meeting in order that committee members‘ precious time not be wasted.

The result was that each member submitted his or her ideas in
writing and we discussed the commonalities among them. At times, we
had to remind ourselves that we were not a grievance committee when
gripes about such things as parking or athletic ticket distribution were
put forth, and there were occasions when we had to remind ourselves
that we were not a group replacement for the Ombudsman. We wish to
differentiate our mission from that of producing another faculty or student
code. We in no way were about to suggest that another booklet be
published concerning what the minimal level of expected behavior should
be, which is all that codes really are. In dealing with ethics, we
transcend the minimum. For example, one should not steal; if one does
and is caught, one is punished. That's code. We submit that the ethical
person just won't steal; there is no rule for him nor is there any punish-
ment or reward. Stealing for the ethical one just doesn't exist as a
possibility. To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius, one should lfiupright,
not Lepl upright.

Eventually, after everyone ventilated, the ideas were collated, and
utilizing the ex officio license of a chairman, some philosophical
narrative was added.



I want to thank the members, each and every one, for their efforts.
My pleasure in meeting them and talking together with them made the
effort worthwhile in terms of time spent; but lest you be deluded, a
minimum of time was actually spent, and should this report suffer the
same fate as most reports of this nature, we shan‘t complain.

CHARGE: Senate Council ad hoc Study Group on Academic Ethical Climate

To study the climate regarding academic ethics in the
University as it involves the various constituencies: students,
faculty and administration; and to report its conclusions and
recommendations to the Senate on ways to encourge the
acceptance of greater personal responsibility to enchance an
academic ethical climate on campus.

Members of the Committee:


Ken Davis , English; Herbert Drennon, Arts and Sciences;
Bruce Eastwood, History; William Ecton, Business and
Economics; Ed Foree, Engineering; Holman Hamilton, History;
Michael Kirkhorn, Journalism; James Marsden, Business

and Economics; Janet McCarty, Student; James Newberry,
Student; Lynn Williamson, Student Affairs; Kathy Welch,
Student, Debi Young, Student; and Nicholas J. Pisacano,
Medical Center, Chairman.

”The night is far spent, the day is at hand: Let us therefore cast off
the works of darkness , and let us put on the armour of light. ” ROMANS 13: 12.

Any civilized group , be it an institution or large society of people in
a state or nation, must live by a set of general principles that help govern
behavior. Such guidelines are concerned with what is good or bad, or
right or wrong. The branch of philosophy that deals with such questions
is known as Ethics. It is interesting to note that the word ethics from the

Greek ”ethos” is etymologically similar to the word moral—s from the Latin

”mores”, in that both words mean ”customs or habits. ”

Man is endowed with instincts. That means that man has an innate
sensitivity to pain, hunger, sexual drive. and so forth——no different than
that of any animal. This may be termed, after Freud, the Id, a quality in
all animals, including man. Higher orders have learning capabilities.
They can learn that stimulus produces response. This secondary level
in man suppresses the Id, but man is not much better than his animal
counterparts in that it can be learned that if an action is taken or per—
formed, that action may be rewarded or punished. There is no moral
judgment here. But man is uniquely capable of a third or highest level,

and that is one of moral judgment-~to judge right from wrong--not merely
in the sense of reward or punishment but a special human quality that deals
with distinctive and qualitative attributes such as “justice, ” ”equity,”

” caring , ” "love , ” ”mercy , ” etc.



Such high qualities are developed through the maturation process in
man (habits) and 9n_lyman. As T. H. Huxley puts it, ”Social process
means a checking of the cosmic process at every step, and the substitution
for it of another, which may be called the ethical process; the end of which
is not the survival of those who happen to be the fittest, in respect of the
whole of the conditions which obtain, but those who are ethically the
best. "

Mankind, in its societal development, developed behavior codes
which were indeed humanizing, distinct from and beyond his juridical
laws. This development of moral law, as opposed to juridical laws, frees
man, and his freedom derives from those humane actions we call

Although this is merely a review of things known to us all, we
believe there are times, periodically, for a restatement of values and
ethical codes. It seems that as people become distracted by the world—-
(”the world is too much with us”) and as they fill out the wrinkles with
fat; as exterior demands on us begin to govern our actions; as we
obtain more material goalS*-money for ourselves or in the form of grants
for our self-aggrandizement; then we see the effects of these in the form
of stresses which mar our image that boasted of lofty values fundamental
to the liberated homo sapiens.

It seems ilo_tfoolhardy, or a waste of time, to occasionally disen-
thrall ourselves, shake off the earthly shroud, and stand on the

periphery and look in at ourselves.

As members of a university community, we forget or perhaps fail to
realize that we enjoy a unigue position of responsibility. To accept the
title of ”professor" at one time meant just what it etymologically says:
”to declare aloud, make a public avowal”—~from the Latin, ”profiteri. "
Such an avowal bound one to a moral obligation to teach, and bore a
heavy responsibility on the one who professed to his students. He was
indeed "in loco parentis . ” But with this came the obligation ta the
student, much as father to his children, again an attribute which
transcended legal duty. The relationship of a teacher to student was a
moral engagement which facilitated learning. The professor also
sensed a feeling for the institution which gave him the facility to
exercise his intellectual pursuits and dispensations with a rather
wide freedom. This freedom which we term " academic freedom ” is a
rare privilege bestowed upon us. It is not to be accepted as one
would any material equivalent. It is an afisome freedom that one
enjoys with the tacit but firm understanding that the faculty person
behave in a highly ethical manner. But the professor also had a sense
of duty to himself. The phrase ”minimal performance” was unknown to
him, and his personal code of ethics made it distasteful to accept
mediocrity. There was no need for a faculty code, for such a code is
superfluous for the ethical people.



Today the very duties and activities outside the Classroom have

made many faculty members entrepreneurs or quasi—administrators,
lusterless pedagogues, and panderers of all sorts. The loss is greater
than the sum of the individuals. It brings a deficit of those exalted
values that make us civilized; the individual dehumanization becomes
institutional, and then the institution loses, and in turn, society loses.

This is then reflected into the rising generation of students and
faculty. They, in turn, assume this mantle, once a mantle of pristine,
natural ethical cloth, now ersatz. We eventually find ourselves with a
race of dehumanized but technically proficient golems. Academic
freedom gives way to academic "freakdom . ”

Is it superfluous then, to remind ourselves, in the academic
institutions that we have a stewardship-~frail as it may be—-with
privileges and freedoms that we still can enjoy? Is it old-fashioned
to attempt to profess once again that we have an obligation or moral
engagement with the students that means not relegating this responsi-
bility to teaching assistants? Is it not unethical for the teachers to
use yellowed notes , standardized tests, curved grading scales where—
by a certain percentage must flunk, graduate assistants, and sleepy
slide shows to replace the learned professor who loved his dicipline
and enjoyed teaching , and who knew not necessarily the taxonomy of
educationists, but how to excite, to stimulate and arouse the students.

Is it ethical for a faculty person automatically to assume an
adversary attitude toward the institution that employs him? Is it ethical
for him to neglect his full-time duties of scholarly pursuit while he
scurries off on various consultations, television shows, women‘s clubs
(for money, of course), and says what these publics want to hear with—
out the constraints of veracity which would be demanded by his peers
in a university arena?

But perhaps more importantly, isn't it unethical when one cannot
to himself be true, when one puts aside pride for material gain?
Academic freedom and integrity do not come cheaply--one must pay
dearly for these values.

At the same time, students need to be taught values constantly.
The student who cheats or plagiarizes or lies to his professor is
undoubtedly unethical. But isn't it also unethical for the student to
place blame for his indecent, immoral and sometimes illegal conduct
of himself or his peers on parents or the “older generation?” Is the
student so blinkered from any decent values that he is totally unaware?
Why should the student's demeanor, when it involves a breach of
ethics , not be called that and nothing else, simply because of their
youth and inexperience?

The administrators of the universities are not without taint. In some
ways , their guilt is greater, for they bear the burden for all faculty and



students. They, like some faculty, often assume an adversary role, when
in fact their job is to facilitate the jobs of others. This adversary stance
comes naturally to them, but often is defensive due to the faculty and stu-
dents who shoot at them. It 13 difficult, after all, for anyone to flick a
peace sign and flash a bonny smile when missiles are being hurled in

his face. However, there is no panderer like the administrator who, at
the mere sight of a legislator or ”important alumnus , ” humbles himself in
the most servile or demeaning manner, otherwise known as "groveling."
It does strain the humanity of faculty when they see a Pecksniff of this
type making decisions for them. Again, this is the result of the times.
But until faculty and students can show some high type behavior them-
selves, let them not criticize their administrators.

One of the most dehumanizing of all things seen in universities is
the anthropomorphizing of the university. This has come about through
the administrators presenting the institution as a sacred object. The
fact is that it is grossly unethical to subvert individual decency in the
name of ”institutional loyalty.” Anecdotes abound about promotional and
employment tactics. They need not be exemplified here. Suffice it to
say it is time to question the ethics of these practices. Likewise, there
have been dismissals of personnel sometimes for purely vindictive
or personality factors. In any event, the deposed is told that it is for
the ”good of the institution. ” The university tie: a_ll_e§. Ironically, all
too often when an administrator is the target of another administrator for

dismissal, and is told, ”I am sorry, you will have to go,” the victim
" understands ,” even though his dismissal, by any standard of judgment,

might have been unfair. But, alas , he accepts his fate, a la Nuremberg
Trials. This is what is alarming~—the morality issue here is really one
of amorality. Again we see the golems rear their ugly heads.

Is this not a propitious time for us in the university to look at our
daily lives and practices as they relate to ethical behavior?

Our committee listed many other concerns, most of which are
familiar to all. We questioned the unethical practices as they relate to:

a) the mis-use of grants;

b) the mis-use of grant funds;

c) the mis—use of publications;

d) personal advancement at the expense of commitment to
students and institutions;

e) the dehumanization of teaching , registration procedures, etc;

f) the lack of concern for quality advising:

g) the general attitude of disdain about intellectual-academic

h) abuse of tenure to perpetuate mediocrity, or even incompetence;
i) administrators who disregard fair play--often the net common-
good gain is lost to the strict conformity of rules among a

growing list of rules;



the attitude of indifference between and among faculty~students-

disregard for medical-dental schools applicants' feelings in the
long and tedious waiting period for those on the so—called ”hold”
list. There is also a question of the possibility of arbitrary and
capricious decisions of admissions committees of so-called
professional schools.

We realize that this report does not shed any light but it does admit
to pointing out areas of darkness. We realize that preconceived notions
and attitudes affect behavior. We do not expect that a mere account of the
state of behavior as it exists will force or enhance positive behavior or
actions. However, it is our sincere hope that we have pricked a few
consciences. If not, then it may be that our needle was not sharp enough
or there were no consciences to prick.

In any event, we believe, rather idealistically perhaps, that unethical
behavior can be brought to a minimum or perhaps eradicated. We
believe that the faculty, students and administrators of the university can
work together in a highly ethical manner. kaelieve that ethical behavior
can be recognized as such, and is its own reward. We likewise believe that
unethical behavior should be recognized as such and exposed as undesir-
able, nay, intolerable in our institution. We do not believe that to act
unselfishly and for the good of others is old-fashioned. WE believe that
qualities such as justice, honor, integrity, love and caring are eternal
values and NOT weaknesses, but, in fact, show strength. Wellelieve
that these attributes can be practiced by all and that students, faculty
and administrators can be habituated to those attributes if exposed over
a period of time to faculty, administrators and students who themselves
demonstrate such qualities. WE b_elieve with the philosopher Hegel that
”The habitual practice of ethical living appears as second nature, which
put in the place of the initial, purely natural will, is the soul of custom
permeating it through and through. "

We believe that all of us who wish to live the ethical life must interna-
lize high standards rather than list them in some fashion of a code, with
its do's and don'ts. Webelieve the Faculty Senate, with students and
administrators , should openly and unashamedly profess the ideals of
high ethical standards and encourage the practice of these ideals through
whatever mechanism suits their judgment. We believe that the winter is
gone and the voice of the turtle should be heard once again in our land.
We should issue a recall for those virtues which will reinvest us with the
academic and personal freedom which we have slowly but ever so surely
let slip from our grasps.

Dr. Pisacano was given an enthusiastic applause.



Chairman Oberst asked if there were any questions or comments concerning the report.
Also, he asked if the Senate should continue the committee for further consideration or
accept the report and file it.

The question was asked about the mechanism by which the report could be implemented.

Chairman Oberst said that would be the work of the committee. He said that he assumed that
one shot statements do not end the committee's interest in ethical and academic responsibilities.

Professor Lienhard said that Professor Pisacano had issued a call for an ethic to be practiced
but he had also indicated that that call could not be translated into rules. The report has now
been heard; it should next be received and filed.

Chairman Oberst said that the question was whether it should be filed as an interim
report and the committee continued, or filed as a final report and the committee discontinued.
He added that he had not had the advantage of seeing the report until that very hour.

Professor Crosby said that perhaps the question could be better answered by knowing
the charge. He asked how the committee had been organized and what the goals were.

Chairman Oberst replied that it was an ad hoc committee appointed by the Senate Council
when Professor Wilson was Chairman. He added that concern was over questions of ethical
conduct on campus , particularly plagiarism and cheating.

[The actual charge to the committee on March 1977 was much broader: See Page 4 of Minutes. l

Professor Lienhard moved that the report be received and filed.

Professor Stephenson said that he concurred with Professor Lienhard that the report be
received but hoped it would not merely be filed. He stated that the content of the report was
of such importance that the Senate Council should find ways to see that it comes to the
attention of the entire campus community.

Chairman Oberst asked Professor Buck if he had any observations to make on the report.

Professor Buck said that he felt the ad hoc committee should be continued and he had some
observations to make in his own report.

It was suggested that the Senate defer voting on the motion until Professor Buck gave
his report.

Chairman Oberst asked Professor C. Frank Buck, Academic Ombudsman, for his Annual
Report of 1977—78.

Professor Buck spoke to the Senate as follows:

Chairman Oberst, members of the Senate, and guests, this oppor—
tunity to present my second annual Ombudsman's report is greatly
appreciated. Also appreciated is the confidence displayed by President
Singletary and the Ombudsman Search Committee in providing me the
opportunity for an additional year of service. The challenges and the
personal experiences were once again fulfilling.




The second year has been not only easier but more enjoyable, as
well. For this, the following reasons are, no doubt, contributory:

increased familiarity with rules and complaint procedures; greater
awareness of which personages facilitate the process; refined ability

to predict and prepare for those Colleges, departments, and teachers
for which complaints are not precedent; and the now experienced and
always capable help of Frankie Garrison, my Staff Assistant. Moreover,
several of this office's most frequent first year visitors are no longer
associated with the university.

Experience also resulted in increased emphasis on a complaint-
prevention policy. The academic rights of students as written in
Student Rights and Responsibilities, Part II, Sections 1.0 - 1.2, were
circulated in order to circumvent noncompliance by certain teachers.
An effort to be available to, and informative through, the radio,
television, press, and personal speaking engagements was undertaken
in order to clarify the functions of this office. he office also worked
with Student Government Officers and recommended that they follow
up on Section 1.7, Student Participation in Academic Affairs, to see
why the Student Advisory Councils were not functioning more effectively.

Students at the University of Kentucky seem to regard the Office of
the Academic Ombudsman in one of 3 ways: (1) The office is capable
of solving all their academic problems; (2) the office is capable of
solving none of their academic problems; or (3) The office exists to
differentiate the academically soluble from the insoluble.

Therefore, the following is a list of the 18 categories voiced by com-
plaining students this year, with some additional comments on each:

(1) Grades are still the most prevalent complaint. Students are
very grade oriented and are quick to cry for help when they
feel they have been unfairly graded, or have not been
informed properly about grade standards early in the course.

Some teachers whose native language is other than English
have serious problems in communicating with students.

Students who have been slighted by their academic advisors
have more problems and complaints.

Teachers who do not follow the University rules regarding
drop-add; grades sent to the Registrar on time; keeping
examinations to show students; and, incomplete and incorrect
records. In fact, several students have not graduated on
schedule because one teacher inexcusably failed to send their
grades to the Registrar on time.

Teachers who leave the University at the end of a term and do
not make available an accurate record of their students’ work
to the Chairman of the Department or some designated person.



1 . required to teach service courses for non-
;xriajors attain the same excellence in teaching these
courses as in $111 courses for their majors.

g wand P1aa‘g1a11”ism. We are hopeful that the Senate
r Committe ee on Academic Ethics and Responsibilities will
' 111 a11ev1ating these problems.

inconis stenc y in grading examinations, reports, term papers,
anc final grades Teachers who use complicated. statistical
curves in allocation of course grades that are not fully under-

Teachers who miss class without competent substitutes, or do
not announce changes in teaching schedules. Teachers who
a1 it ;o aid students outside of class

Admit-ts sions and Suspensi 11 procedures used by Graduate and
Professional schools.

Poorly conceived structuring and use of teacher evaluations.

People who scare the University in are as sother than where they

are the best 7111111 fled or most interested.

The -e lexion process of T5115 shows inadequacies regarding
their oromise as instructors, concern for their training, and
iealis ti: pattern for assessing their performances.

The public relation effect on the Univei sity that students impart
to their home communities if they have had bad academic

often ex orbitant time lag from when a major academic
is 1 ecognized until it is solved.

Students who have deficient educational backgrounds, lack of
motivation, and resultant poor class attendance.

Teachers who change the final examination date without
authorization. Last fall a student called complaining about
having three finals on the same day “this was a week before
final exams were to start.



Even their: ah
‘ oblems , 'W<:"= (is .'
Ke1.tucky is 1137“ ~ .
of complaints '«N :‘x 111:? .5 year than in any previous year
initiated by only 1.; ”mime tely 1/2 of 1% 01‘. the student body.

This year we have ro-nknled. records on 159 academic compile 11515. Of
this number 6 a;
plaints between my grist annual report and July 1.) The aforeme enti oned
159 cases were from the following Colleges: Agriculture - 3; Ailied Health
Professions - 2; Arr hitecture :- 4; Arts and Sciences - 74; Business and
Economics 7- 15; Communications w 4; Dentistry ~ 2; Education 7' 11;
Graduate .31: 11001 1- .18: Engineering ~ 16,: Fine Arts - Z; Home Ecenomics - 4;
Law 22,: 1.119% 7' 1m» 15' -. 0; Media. 33.8 -~ 3; Nursing ~ G; .. 3-12.35 :11: 71:3: ~ 0; and.
Social Professions 1.. Six cases did not fit a particular College so we


see" 3 still pen ding. (Mot: eover, there were {31:017.-

lisi them

Senior - 33;
Sinclent - l;

:‘1. flirt} “.7 " ' .» I... f ' .1..' 511.113: ‘ 11; [1531:5511 st - 14;; September -
19; October - 25. 1. 'I-.~... ..' ' ' ecemoer - Z8; " February - 12;
and MW”'- -- 113.
board on. sever.


We are e outlier! 1111.5 annual report with the same recom. mende ions

and coneligsie one 1715.13 year. Our recommendations are simplisiic in
concepiion. 1311.11 ” 1.15.: in adherence. Nevertheless ,ihese 1=e20311me ride.-
tions have the. folio, ...g ohmcnves. (1) To. strive for qua lity te aching
University 1:111:13, 1:7...) . "a impiement an even better learning environment
at the University of Kentucky; (3) To be aware of the administration' 5
role in providing. supp port for quality teaching and learn hing; (/1) To
implement e c empfi'e (3179 1.1355271 program to improve teaching by 115275;.32‘161
(5) To study Neysa .17 andr means that could prevent or discoura. age chea fling

and plagiarism .

Finally,t his year has been most enjoyable in that we have been able
to help others. Problems were solved; frustrations were alleviated; and,
conflicts were resolved. In short, there are people in this academic
community today whose lives have been impro