xt77d795b41s https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt77d795b41s/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1971-05-10  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, May 10, 1971 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, May 10, 1971 1971 1971-05-10 2020 true xt77d795b41s section xt77d795b41s  

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MAY 10, 1971 3199

The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
May 10, 1971, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Rovin
presided. _Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen*, Ronald Atwood*, Robert Aug*,
James R. Barclay*, Charles E. Barnhart,Henry H. Bauer*, Harry M. Bohannan,
Garnett L. Bradford*, Betty J. Brannan*, Russell H. Brannon, Michael Bruer*,
Marion A. Carnes, Clyde R. Carpenter, W. Merle Carter*, S. K. Chan*,
Richard A. Chapman, Glenn B. Collins, Alfred L. Crabb, Jr., Glenwood L.
Creech, Clifford J. Cremers*, Donald P. Cross, Marcia A. Dake*, William H.
Dennen, R. Lewis Donohew, Robert M. Drake, Jr.*, John P. Drysdale*,
Ronald W. Dunbar, Ray H. Dutt*, Paul T. Ferrell, Lawrence E. Forgy, Jr.,
Ira Fowler, Eugene B. Gallagher*, Art Gallaher, Jr., Wesley P. Garrigus,
Leonard S. Gettes, James L. Gibson*, Charles P. Graves, Joseph J. Gruber*,
John V. Haley*, Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Holman Hamilton, Mary W.
Hargreaves*, Denny 0. Harris*, Virgil W. Hays*, Donald L. Hochstrasser*,
Charles W. Hultman, John W. Hutchinson, Robert D. Jacobs*, Raymon D.
Johnson*, L. Clark Keating, Don Kirkendall, Aimo J. Kiviniemi*, Donald E.
Knapp*, James A. Knoblett*, Lois W. Langhorst, Bruce E. Langlois,
Richard 5- Levine, KathY'Liedtke, John H. Lienhard, Richard Lowitt, John L.
Madden, Paul Mandelstam*, Maurice K. Marshall*, Leslie L. Martin, Joseph L.
Massie, William L. Matthews, Jr., Roger M. McCoy*, L. Randolph McGee,
William R. Merritt, Jr., George E. Mitchell, Jr., Alvin L. Morris,
Theodore H. Mueller, Franklin W. Nooe, Paul Oberst, James R. Ogletree*,
Harold F. Parks*, J. W. Patterson, Curtis Phipps, Herbert G. Reid, Donald
A. Ringe, Frank J. Rizzo, Virginia Rogers*, Robert W. Rudd*, Betty R.
Rudnick*, John S. Scarborough*, Rudolph Schrils*, George W. Schwert,
Robert A. Sedler*, Donald S. Shannon*, D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A.
Singletary*, John B. Stephenson*, Leonard P. Stoltz*, Hugh A. Storrow,
Robert Straus*, Robert H. Stroup, Thomas B. Stroup, Sidney Ulmer*,
John A. Via*, John N. Walker, M. Stanley Wall, Ronald D. Weddle*, Daniel
L. Weiss*, Harry E. Wheeler*, Raymond P. White*, William F. Willard,
Constance P. Wilson*, Miroslava Winer*, Ernest F. Witte*, Kenneth R.
Wright, Leon Zolondek, and Robert G. Zumwinkle*.

The minutes of the special meeting of April 27, 1971 were approved
as circulated.

On behalf of the College of Engineering Dr. Staley F. Adams presented
a Resolution on the death of Professor Robert D. Hawkins and directed
that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and that copies be
sent to his family. The Senate stood for a moment of silence in tribute
to Professor Hawkins and in acceptance of the Resolution.

Robert Dawson Hawkins was born April ll, 1892 in Lexington, Kentucky
and died May l, 1971 of an apparent heart attack. He was awarded the
baccalaureate degree BME from the University of Kentucky in 1915.

In addition, degrees of M.E. were awarded by the University of
Pennsylvania in 1918 and the University of Kentucky in 1921. After
many years of service, he returned for additional study and was
awarded the M.S. degree in 1939 from the University of Michigan.

He was an instructor at the University of Pennsylvania from 1916—
1918. At various times, he had been employed by the Remington
Arms Co., Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., U.S. Navy Department,
Duquesne Light Co., Cary—Reed Construction Co, and Kentucky State
Highway Department.

*Absence explained

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
 
 
   
  
 
  
   
  
 
 

 

 

 

3200 Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971 (cont.)

ing:

    
 
 
  
  
 
 
    
  
  
 
  
   
   
  
  
    
  
  
   

   

He was past master of Lexington Lodge No. 1, F & AM and of Oleika

Temple Shrine. He was a member of Central Christian Church,

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Society for

Engineering Education, Kentucky Society of Professional Engineers,

American Association of University Professors. He was a member dyg!

of Delta Tau Delta social fraternity, and Pi Tau Sigma and Iota “VJ
I

‘~‘—‘,fi..

Alpha Phi and Tau Beta Pi honorary fraternities. He was a
Kentucky Colonel.

Professor Hawkins returned to his Alma Mater in 1918 as an j
instructor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. He served
the University as assistant, associate and full professor for 44
years. He was chairman of the Department of Theoretical and
Applied Mechanics from 1949 until his retirement in 1962 at the
age of 70.

He was recognized in many ”Who's Who” publications such as,
"Who's Who in Engineering", ”Who's Who in Kentucky", "Who's {
Who in America”, "Who's Who in American Education" and the '
”American Men of Science”.

 

Professor Hawkins was deeply concerned and involved with civic
affairs of the community. He was a charter member of the Lexington— ,
Fayette County Planning and Zoning Commission in 1928. His ser— (
vice with the Board consisted of 31 continuous years with the last (
12 years as Chairman.

Professor Hawkins married Martha Weakley, when they were both (
students at the University of Kentucky. He was a dedicated
family man and is survived by three daughters and nine grand—

children. Not only did he have a principal interest in the f
University, but he had a sincere interest in all University
sporting events. His primary hobby, though, was the extensive (

travels that he and his wife made throughout the world. With
his passing, the University has lost a true friend, engineer, \
educator, public servant and an institution in the College of
Engineering.

The Senate permitted the following students to attend the meet— ,
John S. Nelson, Mark Neil Paster, Rebecca Westerfield, Pam Mackay,

and Richard Conte. '

presented the following policy concerning the seating of the 17 student

On behalf of the Senate Council, Dr. Staley F. Adams, its Secretary, ’

senators and requested that it be incorporated into the section entitled
”Terms; Vacancies" of the Rules of the University Senate. This proposal
had been circulated to the faculty under date of May 5, 1971. The
Senate approved the policy for incorporation into the Rules:

 

Current student Senators (17) shall serve terms through the

last meeting of the University Senate of the Spring Semester

of 1972. After that, newly elected student members of the

Senate shall take their seats at the first meeting of the 4:“
Senate in the Fall, or, at any special meeting called during 1! ',
the preceding summer.

  

  

1“, _

!

 

Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971 (cont.) 3201

Dr. Garrett Flickinger, the Academic Ombudsman, made the following

report to the Senate:

Let me say first that I am very pleased to be able to reiterate
what I said at the initial meeting when I spoke to you —— that I have
had very good cooperation on the part of faculty and the administration
in handling these complaints. There have been a few cases of
recalcitrance but, generally, the attitude has been one of cooperation.
I certainly appreciated this and I know the students have.

I can report at this time that I have had, as of last Friday,
120 cases involving some 145 students. The difference in the number
of cases and students is that several of the cases involved more
than one student. I will try to give you some breakdown on the
nature of the complaints I received.

As you might expect, a large portion of the complaints were
complaints on grades. This can be broken down into six subdivisions
—— the first one having to do with the drop—add provisions and with-
drawals by the student after the normal free period. Usually the
complaint was that the student chose to drop and the instructor said
”Fine. You will get an E.” where the student thought he ought to be
able to drop with a W. In most cases, after discussion with the
student, he became aware of the fact that he was, at the time, not
passing the course and one could argue that the instructor was
quite correct in deciding that since he wished to drop the course,
he would have to take an E. On the other hand, there were a couple
of cases of students who had tried to withdraw and the instructor
tried to convince them not to withdraw and the student was trying
to make the decision when an exam was held. The student did not
take the exam and the instructor took the position that at this point
he dropped failing. I was able to negotiate properly these two
cases so that the students did drop with a W. I did not think it
was quite fair and the instructor, after some discussion, felt the
same way.

There were a number of complaints on standards of grading.
This had several different aspects. In some cases the standards
were not clearly announced. You will remember that in accordance
with the Students' Rights section of the Code instructors are
supposed to announce within the first three class periods what the
standards are for which they will be judged in that particular course.
This generally means not only that the instructor has to indicate
the grading items but that, generally, he should also include some
idea of the weight to be given to the various items. He might have
three term papers or classroom quizzes -— how much does this count
on the final grade? How much does the final exam count?

Another area involved misunderstandings; there were problems
of communication between the instructor and the student, the
instructor frequently knowing what he meant but the student getting
a different version. Then there were several complaints involved
with the fact that prior exams or papers were not returned, that
is, the students were given grades but were never given the exam or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

3202 (cont.)

  
 
   
    
 
  
   
   
 
 
 
  
   
  
  
  
 
   
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
    
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

 

Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971

the paper back. I do find this a little bit difficult to
understand. It seems to me that we are not just playing with
grades; we are providing an education. Therefore the exams and Qfim
papers ought to be returned. I was able, generally, to provide dpbv
this although there were a couple of cases where the exams I
simply had been thrown away rather than returned. Then there {
were some problems in terms of make—ups. There are legitimate I

excuses for failing to take an exam and some kind of provisions
for a make—up should be made. ,

I had about 20 cases where the students did not think they
were properly judged —— that the grade received was not the
grade they should have gotten. Many of these felt they had
worked harder than the grade gave them credit for. I explained L
in all of these cases that I cannot interfere and will not r
interfere with the fair judgment of the instructor; and in most {
cases, after talking with the student, I think he or she felt a
little bit better in believing that perhaps just hard work does
not necessarily mean an A grade. @‘m

There were six cases of alleged discrimination by the in-
structor or grading based on matters other than performance in class. f
I am happy to say that only two of these had any kind of meritorious ,
Claim and that these were both settled. '

There were two cases of accusation of violation of the rules \
as to proper notice being given of examination schedules, and these {
were satisfactorily resolved.

 

‘ There were two cases of violation of the Rules as to audit or r
‘f‘ ‘ ‘ pass—fail students. In both these cases I had to request the f
* ‘ assistance of the department chairmen to solve the matter. An \
audit student is not required to do the same work that a regular
student is required to do. In the case of a pass—fail student the '
minimum D grade is regarded as a pass and these are part of the f

University Rules and cannot be changed by individual instructors. ”fig!

I received several complaints on teaching that can generally
be brought down into three different categories. In most of the
cases on teaching about all I could do was offer the student my
shoulder as a crying towel. I had a number of discussions on this
basis. There were at least five cases of accusations of teachers ‘
who were contemptuous of students and showed it. I must say that '
I do regard this, if true, as something that an educator should not
be indulging in. We may, indeed, sometimes feel that our students

are deserving of this but we certainly do not show them this
reaction.

I had several complaints of teachers who were either non—
communicative —— that is, could not actually communicate —— or
were clearly uninspiring. And then there were two complaints of
teachers who are using outdated material in the classroom —— the 15;!“
yellowed notes. I think this is not too bad, if there are only \
two. Then there were some complaints on courses. At least two

 (

r

I
fir,
«Tr- ~"
I

l

f

 

Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971 (cont.) 3203

complaints stated the courses were not covering the material that

the Catalog said they would cover. There was one rather substantial
complaint in this area that is being worked on. There were two
complaints that particular courses taken were either disorganized

or completely unproductive. There were eight complaints that courses
were not scheduled properly or were not adequately staffed. Not
scheduled properly means that the schedule was changed arbitrarily
by the instructor —— as to time or meeting place —— without the
proper authorization from the Registrar's Office and the Dean of the
College. There were some 10 complaints of changes in exam schedules
without proper notice and without proper approval. Again I would
remind you that any change in the classroom meeting place or the

time of a class or of the final exam must be done with the approval
of the department chairman, the dean of the college, and the Registrar's
Office. There were some changes made in terms of exams that were
given at a different time than the normal scheduled class period.
This was during the regular course of the year. This is a question
of notice. Here the dean's permission is required though not the
Registrar's. These were generally handled but I would caution you
that it seems to me, if only in fairness to the student, that if
there are to be exams given at times other than the regularly
scheduled class meeting —— by this I mean regular exams during the
course of the semester —— they ought to be indicated in advance;

by the time of registration if not by the time of advance registration
so that the student can make his appropriate plans. Some of these
were scheduled at night and this does create some problems.

There were some 11 complaints regarding transfer of grades
or credit, either internal or external; problems involving transfers
from community colleges, transfers from other institutions. One in
particular was where the Registrar's Office had made an agreement
with a student concerning a required course taken at a school of
equal caliber. Under the agreement the student, with a grade of
D in the course, was told that the D grade would not transfer and
that the credit for that course would not transfer, but it was
decided that she would be regarded as having satisfied the require—
ment of that course toward the degree. There was a change in
personnel some place along the line and she came ready to graduate
and was told she could not graduate. This was cleared up. I might
say, as a matter of fact, that the Registrar's Office has been most
helpful in clarifying all these matters of the transfers of grades
and credits.

There were six cases of plagiarism. I would say at this point,
for my colleagues in the English Department with whom I hope I am
still on speaking terms, that I have not deliberately tried to be
difficult with them and I would assert, contrary to a view that seems
to be running through the English Department, that to the best of
my knowledge I have never plagiarized. What I had attempted to
indicate was that when I was in school the way I took notes it would
have been possible, as I think with other students, to have plagiarized,
but to the best of my knowledge and ability I never did and so I
swear to you that as far as I know I never plagiarized. Let the
record speak. I do feel that the punishments being given for
plagiarism have been greater than I felt proper or justified under

 

 

 

          
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
  
 
 
     

3204 Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971 (cont.)

the circumstances. I particularly feel this way in view of the
reports of the multi—million dollar business we now have in the
sale of term papers. And by the way there is an entrepreneur
on this campus. I have seen his brochures on the sale of term
papers mailed to me by the Deans of Students at two other insti—
tutions. ESE; at least the student who plagiarizes has read the
material. He has attempted to do the research and that is
deserving of something. It is also, I think, much easier to
plagiarize and much more understandable than is cheating on
a final exam. This is not to say I do not think plagiarism
'should be punished. The question is how hard the punishment
should be. To drop a student from a course with an E because
of one paper is a very heavy penalty. He not only loses the
credit but his overall grade point average is rather drastically
affected. In each case I tried, in my dealing with the English )
Department and with other departments, to see if in fact this 1
l
l

 

could be regarded as a clear case of intentional plagiarism.

I can say I did find one such clear case and supported that
particular department. This was a clear case of intentional
plagiarism. In the other cases, however, I felt there was not

an intentional desire, in fact, to plagiarize. I have had five
cheating cases. My recollection is that in all of them I upheld

the decision of the department and instructor involved. They had
them documented. There were two cases of alleged cheating but

with no documentation. In one case an attempt was\made,to use
statistical probability. I indicated I did not feel I could justify
or agree with an E for the course on the basis of cheating based
merely on the statistical probabilities of a student achieving

a given grade. It seemed to me it needed more in the way of
documentation. In both cases of lack of documentation the instructor
did decide he didn't have enough documentation. But the student, in
one case at least, agreed with the instructor that the particular
paper would not count one way or the other, the student feeling

that he or she could do as good work anyway and the instructor con—
cerned about giving the student the grade when there were indications
of cheating. Finally, I had a number of what I call miscellaneous
items, some of which I will not mention simply because they would

be too obvious as to the personnel. I did have some caSes of advice
to the faculty. Four members of the faculty came for such advice

on a number of different matters such as changes in courses,

changes in exam schedules, the proof that might be needed on a _
cheating case, gt_cetera. I also had a very large protest signed I
by five hundred plus students on the graduation fee which I f
turned over to the administration and the Publications Board.

 

 

3 ~1xfi-fif‘fl‘fr"""“ ‘

Approximately five students came in to discuss with me the
fact that they had been dropped from the University and what
they should do about it. We had a very pleasant talk. There
were four cases of very bad advising of students that really I
got trapped because of some very bad advice. Again I served as ‘
more of a crying towel.

I had several cases involving the smoking memorandum which 4§§Mh
I sent to you. I am really quite serious. I am almost a chain :
smoker myself, but I do think that there are people who are (

    

 

.. (as... ,_ .... ., -.,...-. ,,,., n»; ..-_... ,~-:rrz'l‘.7—, Y""“'l'.“‘v'-“ .~.- jv ,.., . . 11;: “.3... 1.2-} ,. .. ‘. ”1.3...- -‘, ,, 4H1, .k

(cont.) 3205

 

Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971

physiologically nauseated by heavy concentrations of cigarette
smoke and some of our classrooms are very low-ceilinged. Now I
would also ask you to look around. There is a sign in the back of
this room, for instance, that says ”No Smoking". We have all been
somewhat lax about conformance. If you will look at some of the
chairs, you will see what can happen with cigarette smoking. This
is a very expensive auditorium and the chairs, in many cases have

nice fat holes burned in them from somewhat careless cigarette
ashes- And there have been considerable complaints of smoking

in some of the older buildings in classrooms where the danger
ought to be obvious. So again I reiterate the request made in
that particular memorandum.

I have three recommendations which I will pass on to the Senate
and the Senate Council in the hope that perhaps something can be
done in terms of changing or amending the Rules. The first is to
add "intimidation of a faculty member" to the list of academic offenses.
I had a case of intimidation of a faculty member by a student. Since
there was no academic offense involved the only offense that could
be invoked against the student would have been on the disciplinary
side. I think it ought to be added. I think that there ought to be
a penalty on the grade for attempting to intimidate or bribe —— I
haven't had one of those yet but it might come —— a professor to
give a grade.

Secondly, I would suggest that in the Rules regarding the
right of the instructor to penalize the student for violation of
an academic offense, there be a clarification concerning the giving
of an E for the course. You will remember that the instructor can
give an E for the paper or the exam in which the academic offense
OCCurred, or an E for the course, or he can recommend to the Dean
that the student be dropped. The Appeals Board and I have taken
the position that to give an E for the course without dropping the
student can occur only when the cheating or whatever the academic
offense is, occurs on the final exam or the final term paper.
Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to talk about dropping the
student with an E. It makes the two of them too close together.
It is somewhat difficult for the student if on the second term
paper he is told that he is going to get an E for the course for
cheating but is not being dropped. It is somewhat difficult
to imagine that he will feel very serious about continuing to
prepare for that course. I think this ought to be clarified to
make sure that we are doing what you want us to do.

Finally, I did have about seven cases involving students in
the Graduate School. I would like to suggest to the Graduate
School that it might be wise to make some studies as to the
possible changes in handling your particular problems in the
Graduate School dealing with the academic offenses and setting up
some kind of procedure for adjudication within the Graduate School
structure. Let me urge that you might at least make some kind of
study of this problem. I would be happy to make my records, which
are not confidential, available to the appropriate Graduate School
officers. I found the greatest difficulty in dealing with the

   
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     

 

 

 

  
   
   
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
   

 

3206 Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971 (cont.)

problems in the Graduate School was knowing who to negotiate

with. There is the department chairman, the Dean of the Graduate
School, the Associate Dean of the Graduate School,‘the Dean of the
College, the adviser, and the Committee for the graduate student,
gt_cetera. It becomes somewhat difficult to find who makes the
final decision.

This is my report for the year. I will say that I have
thoroughly enjoyed my year in service and that I am only-asking not
to be reappointed next year because the Law School has difficulty
in relieving me from teaching duties. I have found it somewhat
difficult this year to use this as an extra-curricular activity.

It does need a full half—time slot and trying to teach a full—
time load and carry full-time teaching responsibilities, plus
the Ombudsman job, has become more than I can handle.

Thank you for your courtesy.

Dr. Flickinger was accorded an ovation in recognition of his work as
Academic Ombudsman.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Dr. Adams presented a proposal
to delete the first paragraph under Section IV, RULES RELATING TO
STUDIES, Absences in the Rules of the University Senate and replace it
with the following new paragraph. This proposal had been circulated to
the faculty under date of May 5, 1971.

F. Attendance:
Attendance by the student shall not be mandatory.
However, in cases where attendance is essential
for demonstration by the student of his degree of
mastery of course materials, such attendance may
be appropriately weighted in determining the
student's final course grade. Where infrequent
attendance disrupts the class, the student may
be dropped for excessive absences and the in—
structor shall report his grade as W. In all cases
the instructor shall announce on the first or second
day of class his policy regarding class attendance.

Following extensive discussion in which the Senators expressed concern
that this proposal removed from them the option of requiring class
attendance by a student, Professor Roger Eichhorn presented a motion to
table the proposal and the Senate approved the motion.

Mr. Scott Wendelsdorf, President of Student Government, presented
a proposal from the University Student Advisory Committee (USAC) and
its Subcommittee on ROTC that a University-wide ad hoc committee
be established to study the proper role for ROTC at the University
of Kentucky; that this committee be composed of two administrators
and one representative of the Military Science programs (to be appointed
by the President of the University), three faculty members (to be

4

*3

 

l
l
(
I

    
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
  
   
  
   
 
  
 
 
    

Minutes of the University Senate, May 10, 1971 (cont.)

appointed by the University Senate Council), and three students (to be
appointed by the Student Government); that this committee be charged
with investigating the desirability of establishing and implementing,
on an inter—departmental and inter—collegiate basis within the
University a program of Military Studies, such program to provide the
academic component of U.S. Army Officer Training and U.S. Air Force
Officer Training at U.K. along lines indicated in the report written
by Dr. Ellwood Hammaker for the Arts and Sciences ad hoc Committee on
ROTC; that this committee be charged with investigating other supple—
mentary or alternative proposals for strengthening ROTC programs at
the University; and that this committee report its findings to the
University Senate Council no later than October l, 1971.

_ cm,
MAW . ”—3 715“» "Y -—\,

This proposal was circulated to the faculty under date of May 5, 1971.

Following a statement by Mr. John Nelson, a student, advancing his
3 reasons for proposing the foregoing resolution, Dr. Thomas Olshewsky

t stated that since the College of Arts and Sciences was already involved
«a in a study of the ROTC role and, initially, it regarded this question
as a college matter, he wished to make a motion that the proposal presented
by Mr. Wendelsdorf be tabled until the regular November meeting of the
' Senate in the fall.

Mr. Wendelsdorf stated that he thought the issue should be discussed
further and called for a roll call vote on whether or not to table
the proposal. The Senate defeated the motion for a roll call vote.

[ The Senate then voted to table the motion to the regular November
f meeting of the Senate this fall.

{

l

|

 

The Senate adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

 

 

 

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

DEAN OF ADMISSIONS AND REGISTRAR

May 5, 1971

To the University Senate

A special meeting of the University Senate will
be held at 3:00 p.m., Monday, May 10, 1971, in the
Court Room of the Law Building. As provided in the Rules
of the University Senate, the lOéday circulation period
for notice of meeting is hereby waived.

Items on the agenda will include the proposal relative
to the seating of the student Senators, circulated to the
faculty under date of May 5, 1971; a report from the
Academic Ombudsman; the proposal to change Section IV,

F. Absences, in the Rules of the University Senate; cir—
culated to the faculty under date of May 5, 1971; and a
proposal from the University Student Advisory Committee
relative to ROTC, circulated to the faculty under date
of May 5, 1971. '

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary