xt77m03xwj5b https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt77m03xwj5b/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1993-03-08  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 8, 1993 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 8, 1993 1993 1993-03-08 2020 true xt77m03xwj5b section xt77m03xwj5b LNHVERSHY OF KENTUCKY




26 February 1993

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

*at 3:00 PM in room 115 of the Nursing Building



Minutes: 14 December 1992.
Chair's Announcements

Report on Freshman Statistics: Robert E. Hemenway, Chancellor,
Lexington Campus

Action Items

a. Proposed Honorary Degree Candidates, Dr. Emery Wilson,
Chair, Honorary Degree Committee.

b. Proposed Resolution to the Attorney General, Commonwealth
of Kentucky, on the Interpretation of Open Records law.
(circulated under date of 24 February 1993).

Proposed Pilot Program, jointly sponsored by the College of
Arts and Sciences and University Studies. (Circulated
under date of 25 February 1993.)

Randall Dahl




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 8, 1993,
in Room ll5 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

John J. Piecoro, Jr., Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Richard Anderson, Virginia Atwood, John R. Ballantine, Mark
C. Berger, John J. Bernardo*, David T. Berry*, Glenn C. Blomquist, Peter P.
Bosomworth, Carolyn S. Bratt, Joseph T. Burch, Lauretta Byars, Rutheford B Campbell,
Jr. Clyde R. Carpenter*, Ben w. Carr, Chris Carrico, Edward A. Carter, Shea Chaney,
Louis C. Chow*, Donald B. Clapp, Charlie Clark, Jordan L. Cohen, Audrey L. Companion,
Sarah Coursey, Clifford J. Cremers*, David Denton, Donald T. Frazier*, Michael B.
Freeman, Richard N. Furst, Todd A. Griffin, Robert D. Guthrie, Lynne A. Hall, J. John
Harris, III, Zafar S. Hasan*, Christine Havice, Donald L. Hochstrasser, Floyd J.
Holler*, Richard A. Jensen*, Edward J. Kasarskis, Richard I. Kermode, Kevin S.
Kiernan*, Kenneth K. Kubota, James M. Kuder*, Thomas w. Lester, Thomas T. Lillich*,
C. Oran Little, William C. Lubawy, Linda J. Magid*, Justin Marriott, Marcus T.
McEllistrem, Martin J. McMahon, Jr., Peggy S. Meszaros, William G. Moody*, James S.
Mosbey, David A. Nash*, Phyllis J. Nash, Anthony L. Newberry, Robert C. Noble, Pete
November, Rhoda-Gale Pollack*, Leigh Ann Poynter, Thomas C. Robinson, Tracy Rogers,
Ellen B. Rosenman, Minni Saluja,_David Sanford, Mary C. Shake*, Michael C. Shannon,
w. Craig Shellhart*, Candi Smith, Crystal Smith, Thomas Stipanowich, David H.
Stockham, Michael G. Tearney*, Phillip A. Tibbs, Charles T. Wethington*, Carolyn A.
Williams*, Eugene R. Williams,-Peter Nong*, Louise J. Zegeer.

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the first University Senate meeting of the
l993 Spring term.

The Chair pointed out the first item on the agenda was the Minutes of the
December l4, l992 meeting. He asked if there were any additions or corrections to
the minutes for December. Professor Dan Fulks had a clarification on remarks he had
made on page 15. He stated he felt the students did not handle the case very well
and he was not being critical of the work the Calendar Committee had done. The Chair
then stated the minutes would stand as distributed.

The Chairperson made the following announcements.

Faculty Trustee Election Ballot - The faculty should have received the second
and final ballot to elect a faculty representative to the Board of Trustees. The
ballot was mailed out on March 3, l993 and has a voting deadline of Friday, March 19,
l993. The three candidates are Jim Applegate - Communications, Bill Lyons -
Political Science and Loys Mather - Agriculture Economics.

Strategic Plan Adoption - This plan was adopted last week by the Board of

Trustees and now the colleges and other units will develOp their plans based on the
University's Strategic Plan.

* Absence Explained


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, 1993

Faculty Workload Report - The report was adopted by the Board of Trustees and
will be incorporated into the Administrative Regulations of the University.

Sullivan Award Nominations - Saundra Lykins, Chairperson, Sullivan Awards
Committee asked Professor Piecoro to read the following announcement. The Sullivan
Award Committee is accepting nominations for this year's Sullivan Medallions which
will be presented on Commencement Day. The Medallions are presented in three
categories; one undergraduate graduating women, one undergraduate graduating man, and
one person who is not a student. In making nominations the committee requests the
following criteria be kept in mind ”in the selection of the recipients nothing shall
be considered except the possession of such characteristics as heart, mind, and
conduct as evince a spirit of Tove for the helpfulness to other men and women."
Nomination forms can be obtained from Saundra Lykins, Dean of Students Office. The
deadline for receiving nominations is March 25, l993.

Uniform Teaching Evaluation Form - The forms are available for use this
semester. During the fall semester about 40,000 evaluations were used. The form as
it is printed includes the controversial item 2l, the summary question. It can be
deleted from the analysis. At the beginning of the semester there were 20,000 forms
available. Anyone who would like to use the forms can contact Dr. Roseann Hogan's
office, Planning and Assessment at 257-l633.

Common Course Numbering SJR36 - The Senate Council received, reviewed, and
subsequently commented to the President on the interim report on common course
numbering, Senate Joint Resolution 36. This report is on the status of common course
numbering systems around the country, the limitations on transfer hours, and the
transferability and applicability of courses. In the remarks to the President it was
stressed that although a course is transferable from one institution to another it
may not be applicable to specific program requirements. Also pointed out were the
differences in general studies requirements and university Studies requirements.

Open Records Resolution to the Attorney General - On February 8, l993 the
Senate Council met and adopted a resolution concerning the Open Records law. The
Council sent the resolution to the President and asked him to forward it to the
Attorney General. The resolution will be discussed later in today's meeting.

Open Records Resolution to the President - The Senate Council also sent a
resolution to the President on Open Records. The Resolution read as follows: “In
compliance with the law and the University Administrative Regulations pertaining to
standard personnel files, the University Administration should make available to
faculty all information contained in his or her Personnel files. It should also make
available to other persons information from the files of faculty with written
consent. Nhen information from faculty files is requested through the open records
process, by other persons without written consent, the University Administration
should notify the faculty member of the request for his or her file or any subsequent
appeal of denial of such a request for their file and identify the person making the
request.” The Chair stated that essentially that if a third party requested a
faculty member's file the Senate Council felt the individual faculty should know who
has requested their file.

Reorganization Guidelines - Copies of the updated and revised guidelines with
proposals to create an educational unit or alter its status were sent to the


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, l993

Chancellors, deans, department chairs and directors. The Senate Council adopted the
guidelines which were submitted by the Academic Organization and Structure
Committee. Mike Freeman is the committee chair and has indicated the guidelines will
be used to evaluate the proposals for reorganization and the committee will act
expeditiously as they receive the proposals.

Athletic Department — Senate Council Meeting - In the December meeting the
Chair announced that C. M. Newton, Director of Athletics would address the Senate on
the Integration of Education and Athletics at the University of Kentucky. Mr. Newton
understood he was invited to a Senate Council Meeting and not a Senate Meeting. The
Council met with him and several members of his staff along with Professor Virginia
Atwood who is the UK faculty representative to the NCAA on February 22, l993. Mr.
Newton indicated that all of the coaches stress academics and the department has a
philOSOphy that all players are expected to graduate. The department will operate a
totally compliant program and one that excludes class as well as being competitive in
each of the 2l sponsored sports. His staff commented on the its tutorial program,
i. e. the CATS program, on the NCAA and SEC admission requirements and the review
process on that, the Model Student Athlete Advisory Committee which was formed to
help student athletes in various areas and was the first one established in the SEC
and nOW'all the other schools in the SEC have this type of committee. The department
has established a Wildcat Career development program to help athletes get jobs after
obtaining their education. As a result of this meeting, the Senate Council and Mr.
Newton agreed to meet on a regular basis. The Council felt there was no need for Mr.
Newton to address the Senate.

Parental Leave - Tenure Clock Stoppage — The Chair had announced some time ago
that the Senate Council had sent a proposal to President Nethington that dealt with a
parental leave policy. He read the following proposal which had been sent to the
President. ' ~ ‘

.That the probationary period for a nontenured'faculty member be suspended for a
maximum of one year when the faculty member becomes either a biological or
adoptive parent. Further, that both male and female nontenured faculty are
eligible to claim the one year suspension. Further, that a nontenured faéulty
member is entitled to only a single, one-year suspension regardless of the number‘
of births or adoptions during her or his nontenured period of employment and -
further, that the nontenured faculty member must initiate the one-year suspension
by requesting it any time prior to the sixth year of the probationary period.

The Chair stated he would like to regrettably read the response of President

I have considered the proposal of the Senate Council to amend the University of
Kentucky Administrative Regulations to allow for a suspension of the tenure clock
for one year for certain selected reasons. In my review, I gave careful
consideration to the often expressed faculty view that there is good reason to
make a decision on tenure within a previously stated period of time. At the
University of Kentucky, the seven-year probationary period is a "previously
stated period of time". Though I have a great deal of sympathy for the reasons
behind this proposal, I do not believe it is desirable to change the present
policy which clearly spells out a stated period of time for a decision to be made
about tenure. Obviously, in addition to new parents, there are others in the


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, l993

institution who have very legitimate reasons to wish to have the tenure decision
delayed. Reluctantly, I cannot support this pr0posal given my concerns about the
impact on the tenure policy at the University.

The Chair said that subsequent to receiving that letter from President Nethington,
the Family Leave Policy was passed by Congress and signed by the President and part
of this issue will be revisited. In the meantime he has written letters to all of
the Benchmark Institutions to see what kinds .Of policies they have, and he has begun
receiving responses in the last week.

The Chair said there was a visit to the Rural Health Program in Hazard. Members
of the Academic Council of the Medical Center, the Graduate Council, the Senate
Council, and the Undergraduate Council visited there last week and others from the
same groups will be visiting Hazard this week to see the facilities, to see a
demonstration of the T—l Interactive Television, and to meet with students and
faculty. All who attended last week came away very impressed with the program.

The Chair stated the Senate Council had approved the l993-1994 revised Academic
Calendars and the preliminary calendars for l995—l996 at the February 8, l993
meeting. The calendars are attached to the minutes of this meeting.

The Chairperson recognized Dr. Emery wilson (Medicine), Chair of the Committee on
Honorary Degrees, for the first action item which was the presentation of the list of
candidates for Honorary Degrees. The Chair reminded the Senate the information
should be confidential until approved by the Board of Trustees. Dr. Wilson, on
behalf of the Honorary Degrees Committee, stated that the Committee uses as criteria
for consideration for an Honorary Degree a person who has demonstrated exceptional
achievement either academically or in service in their field of endeavor. He said
they should have some tie to Kentucky or the University of Kentucky although that is
not an absolute criteria and they should be present to receive the Honorary Degree.
The committee met on two occasions during the past two months. They also consider
those candidates who have been approved previously, there are two individuals who
have been previously approved by the Senate, if not by the Board of Trustees. He
then reported there are three nominees for Honorary Degrees this year. Dr. Wilson
read biographical information on the three nominees for the Senate's consideration.

The Chairperson stated this was a recommendation for the Senate to approve the
candidates they wish to recommend to the President for submission to the Board of
Trustees. The motion was moved and seconded and there was no discussion. The motion
was unanimously approved for recommendation to the President.

The Chairperson recogniZed Professor Dan Fulks, Chair elect of the Senate Council
to present the next action item. Professor Fulks stated the Senate Council was
seeking affirmation from the full Senate for the resolution on the Open Records Law
that the Senate Council had sent to the Attorney General in February. The resolution
concerns the availability of information contained in a faculty member's personnel
file, the availability of that information to third parties. The issue was raised
initially by the Faculty Council from the College of Agriculture. The issue would
have normally been brought before the full Senate before a resolution was written.
The timing was such that there was a deadline to meet from the Attorney General's
Office and the Senate Council felt the need to respond in a timely fashion. The
resolution was written and was unanimously approved by the members of the Council


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, 1993

present on that day. There were three exofficio members and three other members not
present on that day. A1so present for the discussion were Professor Jan Schach
representing the Co11ege of Agricu1ture Facu1ty Counci1, Professor Mike Kennedy was
present as President of the University Chapter of the AAUP, and the University
CounseT's office was represented by Mr. John Darsie and Mr. Pau1 VanBooven.

The Chairperson then stated the fo11owing information was re1easab1e to anyone
who requested it: 1) Notice of Academic Appointment and Assignment, 2) Distribution
of Effort (DOE), 3) Curricu1um Vitae, and 4) Sa1ary and Sa1ary Increases. The
fo110wing information is not avai1ab1e: 1) Home address, phone number, and socia1
security number, 2) Merit—ranking or other written merit eva1uation, and 3) InternaT
and externa1 peer 1etters of recommendation/eva1uation of other subjective written
eva1uation materia1. The Chair stated since this item came from the Senate Counci1
it required no second. The Chair then opened the f1oor for discussion of the

Keith Schi11o (Agricu1ture) stated that he and his c011eague Jim Hendrix were
somewhat responsib1e for this resoTution. They did not promote this reso1ution but
some of their actions may have 1ed to it. Professor Hendrix and Professor Schi110
read from prepared statements. Their statements are attached to the minutes.

Robert F1ashman (Agricu1ture) stated he has a current 1awsuit against the
University of Kentucky, Which he wou1d not discuss today. However, part of the
question he is-disturbed about is that the survey sent out by the Co11ege of
Agricu1ture is not what he wou1d ca11 the best piece of socia1 science research. It
had a question dea1ing with notification to individua1s that suggested Notice of
Appointment Contracts, DOE forms and sa1ary records are persona11y private. When the
vote was ta11ied by the Ag CounciT it was 114 to 12 in favor of notification of
individuaTs that a request had been made for these records. (Many facu1ty such as
himse1f did not even vote on the issue because of the questions on the survey and the
way they were framed. A1so, the statement that preceded the questionnaire was
extreme1y biased toward one opinion. He stated that the question presented by the
Co11ege of AgricuTture supposes that everyone wi11 be1ieve you have vio1ated privacy
by asking for someone's DOE form or Notice of Appointment papers, and that this
information can be important when you want to appea1 a merit rating. What are
facu1ty chosen to hear the appea1 going to be1ieve--if they have their mind set that
you are vioTating their privacy, then how can a facu1ty member get a fair eva1uation?.

Professor F1ashman's second question has to do with procedures and poTicy and how
you are eva1uated. As part of his promotion for Fu11 Professor that he appea1ed to
the Tenure and Privi1ege Committee two years ago, and on the committee presented to
the Facu1ty Senate, the criteria on which he was eva1uated were not in his job
description. He thinks it is extreme1y important when ta1king about po1icies and
procedures and c1arification that facu1ty need to know from day one what in fact they
are going to be promoted on. It is the on1y way you can question what peop1e say on
your merit eva1uation. For examp1e, if they say you didn't do enough pub1ications,
then you need to know others' DOE, how many pub1ications did they have--when they say
you did not have enough. Without being ab1e to have access to that kind of
information, it is impossib1e to cha11enge to either the c011ege appea1s committee or
the University appea1s committee exactTy what criteria they are eva1uating you on.

Professor F1ashman's 1ast item is that the Chance11or through his Town Meeting in


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, 1993

l990-l99l asked, ”which university is the University of Kentucky?" Is it the
University where there is access to open communication and open information, or is it
the University that you cannot get it? People attending were asked to raise their
hands if in fact they thought the University of Kentucky was an institution where
people thought they had access to open communication and open information. No one
raised their hand. Professor Flashman feels this vote today is another step where
they are trying to get the senate to approve something which, in fact, everyone
agrees you have the right to access--this type of information. But when you tie
privacy into DOEs, Notice of Appointment contracts and other types of information
that you have the right to receive, it gives the impression that you are violating
people's privacy rights.

Bradley Canon (Political Science) stated that when he came to the meeting he
thought he understood the issue. He appealed for the Senate to go back to the issue
which is the question of whether third parties can ask for certain materials as
outlined in the resolution; recommendation letters, merit evaluation forms, letters
of advice, and similar evaluative materials. That is the issue, not what is going on
in the College of Agriculture. As a general University policy do they want strangers
or colleagues from your department to get this sort of material on you?

Robert Flashman responded that this is what he is referring to-—there is no
policy to give the right of access to that information, the state law now controls
it, and the Attorney General is not making a ruling on that issue.

Jesse Neil (Physics) stated there is a value to a third party being able to get

evaluative materials. The value is if the person feels that he has an appeal and
wants to determine whether or not he has been treated consistently with other people
in an evaluation, whether his collegues have been judged on the same grounds on which
he has been judged. He has no basis for determining that unless he has access to the
evaluations of the other people. On the other side of the issue, there are certain
rights of privacy which all of us feel we ought to enjoy and these two things come
into conflict on this issue. He asks of the people in the College of Agriculture are
they in agreement or in disagreement with this resolution?

Keith Schillo stated he thinks they made it very clear. They all agree there are
certain things that are readily available and certain things that are not. The point
is there is no need for this resolution, that is not an issue, the law states that.
Their reason for coming is they feel they were misrepresented by some of their
colleagues in the College of Agriculture as attempting to answer personnel and
confidential parts of personnel files which they are not.

Jan Schach (Agriculture) stated she is Chair of the Agriculture Faculty Council.
She said a survey was sent out and one of the questions asked was ”are you in favor
of a second party having access to your personnel files without your written
consent". She said she had not tabulated all the surveys but she feels about 85% are
against that policy and would be in favor of this resolution.

Bill Lyons (Political Science) feels the one thing that needs to be remembered is
that this resolution did not come out of thin air, it came out of a discussion that
was held because an appeal was filed with the Attorney General requesting an opinion
on this matter. One of the reasons that the Attorney General was having problems
with this request and the reason why the Senate Council was asked to comment on this,


 'Minutes, University Senate, March 8, 1993

had to do with the fact that the request involved a letter that contained statements
of principle and fact. The way the request was framed included requests for DOEs and
all those kinds of things that you can get now, but also included evaluative
materials. The resolution came about because of an action taken by people who wanted
an opinion from the Attorney General on this subject as to whether or not those
evaluative materials could be opened to third parties. There are really two issues
here, this particular resolution speaks to the question of whether or not faculty
believe that third parties have access to their merit evaluations or outside letters
for peer review. The other resolution speaks to the question of whether or not you
should be told if someone is requesting those items or if their files are opened to
everyone. Therefore, this particular resolution comes from a real case, and has to
do with the question "do you want to have these evaluative aspects of your record
made open to anyone, not only your collegues but the general public, the press, the
media and so on"?

The question was called and passed with a unanimous voice vote.

In a voice vote on whether or not to reaffirm the resolution, the motion
unanimously passed and reads as follows:

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, March 8,
I993. Resolution to the Attorney General, Commonwealth of
Kentucky, on the Interpretation of Open Records law


RESOLUTION to Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky
'Re: Interpretation of Open Records law


The University Senate Council, the body charged with providing
leadership to enable the University Senate to perform effectively
its role of formulating and implementing educatiOnal policies of
the University, fully supports the manner in which the
University's administration interprets the Open Records law
concerning third party access to faculty personnel files and
related materials. Certain types of factual material pertaining
to university employees, e.g., salary and curriculum vitae, are
currently available to the public under the open records
requirements. We believe, however, that recommendation letters,
merit evaluation forms, letters of advice and similar evaluative
materials should not be available to third parties or to the
public generally. To interpret the Open Records law so as to make
evaluative materials available could have several adverse
consequences: 1) It would greatly compromise the privacy of
university employees to have their evaluations of entire.work
history disseminated and discussed around campus and perhaps even
more publicly, 2) it could strain relationships between faculty
colleagues and between faculty members and administrators, and 3)


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, l993

it could make those asked or required to comment on performance
and promotions more reluctant to be candid and substantive when
they realize that their commentary is available_for public
dissemination. We see no countervailing benefit to a third party
-— or to the public -~ in making evaluatiVe materials open to

all. Nor do we believe that this was the intention of the General

Background and Rationale:

At the Senate CounCil (SCT meeting on February 8, 1993, the Senate
Council unanimously agreed to adopt, in principle, a resolution to
the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky. The above
resolution was circulated to and approved by the SC and sent to
President Charles T. Wethington, Jr. with a request that he
forward it to the Attorney General. The Senate Council acted
expeditiously because the Attorney General would soon be rendering
a decision which would further interpret the Open Records law.


This matter was brought to the attention of the SC by the College
of Agriculture Faculty Council. At issue is the ability of
individuals to have access to information in the Standard
Personnel File of other individuals within the University, without
their knowledge and consent. '

The following is a description of the University's policy and
procedure on open records requests regarding Personnel Files:

Pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act, the University makes
available to faculty complete information from their own
Standard Personnel Files. The University will also make
available to other persons information from a faculty member's
file with his/her written authorization. However, the Open
Records Act also requires the University to release to persons
who file an Open Records request certain types of information
from faculty Personnel Files. The law does not require the
faculty member's consent and the law neither requires nor
inhibits notification of the individual of a request for his or
her files by others.

Several exceptions to the law limit the types of information
available for release. This includes information of a personal
nature where disclosure of the information would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Open
Records Act requires that this provision be strictly construed,
even though the release of records may "cause inconvenience or
embarrassment to public officials or others.“ Currently, the
University makes available to persons who file an Open Records
request the following information from Faculty Standard
Personnel Files without the written consent of the affected
faculty member:

l) Notice of Academic Appointment and Assignment
2) Distribution of Effort


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, 1993

3) Curricuium Vitae
4) Saiary and Saiary Increases

Acting in accordance with the iaw and Attorney Genera]

opinions, the University considers the foiiowing information
personai and confidentiai and does not reiease it to other
persons uniess it is with the written consent of the individuai:

1) Home address, phone number, and sociai security number

2) Merit ranking or other written merit evaluation

3) Internai and externai peer ietters of recommendation/
evaiuation or other subjective written evaiuation materiai.

The Senate Councii supports the right of facuity to access their
own Personnei Fiies, but responses to requests by other persons
for facuity fiies, without written consent, constitutes an
invasion of privacy.

The Senate Councii recommends that the Senate affirm the Senate
Councii's resoiution to the Attorney Genera], Commonweaith of
Kentucky. '

The Chairperson recognized Dan Fuiks for the next action item. Professor Fuiks
stated the proposai was jointiy sponsored by the University Studies Program and the
Coiiege of Arts and Sciences. He said the Senate Counci] recommended approva] of the
proposai. The proposai is for a piiot project which wOuid initiaiiy take
approximateiy 100 students into a program which couid enabie them to satisfy their
University Studies requirements of 36 hours during their freshman and sophomore years
by entering a structured program entitied ”The Deveiopment of the Modern Norid: _
Science, CuTture, and Society" with T3 facuity members who have aiready been invoived‘
in the deveiopment of the program. He pointed out that the sponsors are requesting
approvai of a piiot project, not necessariiy approvai of a program on a permanent
basis. Professor Fuiks caiied attention to an error on the cover ietter of the
agenda item. The Tast sentence shoqu read: If approved, the Piiot Program wiTT
require a change in the course A&S 100 to increase the credits from 1-3 to 1—6 with
,repeatabiiity up to 12 credit hours.

The Chair said that since the recommendation came from the Senate Councii it
needed no second. He pointed out that Dean Louis Swift and Dean Richards Edwards
were present representing University Studies and Arts and Sciences to respond to
questions. .

Jonathan Giixon (Fine Arts) said he had been very much committed to the
University Studies Program but had probiems with this program in 3 areas. First of
a1] the program is essentiaiiy an Arts and Sciences proposai, not reaiiy a University
proposai. In his understanding Fine Arts was not asked to participate in this
program as a Coiiege or the individuai departments who do participate activaiiy in
University Studies. It seems to him that if they are divising a program it needs to
have the participation of more than just one coiiege. Secondiy, he is bothered by
the curricuium as currentTy stated in particuiar the sampTe reading Tist which seems
to be Timited aimost entireiy to ways of knowing what are taught in the Coiiege of
Arts and Sciences not ways of knowing what are taught outside the Coiiege of Arts and


 Minutes, University Senate, March 8, l993

Sciences. It seems that they are not offering a broad enough exposure in the
humanities and social sciences, and he is committed to the belief that we cannot
understand culture without looking at the arts. His third objection is directed to
the program as designed. In the University Studies program as currently designed
they have stressed and worked hard to make sure that the disciplines are taught, so,
that when English is taught the students get a view from the point of literary
scholars and that cannot be done the way this program is designed. It does not seem
to be the kind of thing that the rest of the University Studies program is based
upon. He is also bothered about the reliance on Teaching Assistants (TAs) in a