xt783b5w9n12 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt783b5w9n12/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1974-02-11  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, February 11, 1974 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 11, 1974 1974 1974-02-11 2020 true xt783b5w9n12 section xt783b5w9n12   



The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday , February

ll, 1974 in the Court Room of the Law Building.
Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen, John G. Banwell, Charles E.

Chairman Stanford L. Smith presided.

Barnhart, Robert

P. Belin, Robert S. Benton*, Garnett L. Bradford*, Charles L. Brindel, Sam Brown*,

Herbert Bruce*, John M. Bryant, Jamie Chase, James E. Criswell*,hThaddeus B. Curtz*,

Vincent Davis? Wayne H. Davis*, John L. Duhring*, Roger Eichhorn: Claude Farley*,
Irving Fisher*, James Flegle*, Juanita Fleming*, Paul G. Forand*, Lawrence E.
Forgy*, James E. Funk, Milton E. Gellin*, Richard E. Gift*, Ward 0. Griffen*,

Jack E. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, George W. Hardy, Virgil W. Hays*,

Charles F. Haywood:

Ron Hill*, Raymond R. Hornback, Eugene Huff*, Charles W. Hultman*, Raymon D.

Johnson*, L. Clark Keating, John E. Keller*, William F. Kenkel*, James B. Kincheloe*,

Don Kirkendall, Walter Langlois*, David L. Larimore, Mark Lee, Cynthia Link,
Marion E. McKenna*, Michael P. McQuillen*, Alvin L. Morris*, Arthur F. Nicholson,
Jacqueline A. Noonan, James R. Ogletree, Thomas M. Olshewsky*, Paul F. Parker*,
David Peck*, Donald A. Ringe, Robert W. Rudd*, William Shanks, D. Milton Shuffett*,

Otis A. Singletary*, David Smith, Herbert W. Sorenson*, Earl L.

Steele*, William

J. Stober*, Andy Strickland*, Frank Traficante*, Jacinto J. Vazquez*, Harwin L.
Voss*, Thomas J. Waldhart*, M. Stanley Wall, Wayne Waller*, M. O'Neal Weeks,
Daniel L. Weiss, Rebecca Whitis, Leslie K. Williamson, Paul A. Willis, Ernest F.

Witte*, Kenneth R. Wright.

The Chairman stated that the Senate would consider confidential information
in this meeting and asked that all Senators and guests present not release the

posted in the room and refrain from smoking during the meeting.

He also asked that those present respect the "No Smoking" regulation

The minutes of the regular meeting of December 10, 1973 were approved as


On behalf of the College of Engineering Professor Orville W. Stewart, Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, read the following Resolution on the death of
Professor Estel Burdell Penrod and asked that it be spread on the minutes of

this meeting and that a copy be sent to Professor Penrod's widow.


the reading of the Resolution the Chairman asked the Senators to stand for a

moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Penrod.


The University community has been greatly saddened by the recent
death of Professor Estel B. Penrod, retired Chairman of the Mechanical En-

gineering Department.

"E.B.", as he was known to his close friends, came

to the University in 1946 from the Armour Research Foundation, to become

Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Head of the Department.


he had been a Professor and Head of the Physics Department at Hillsdale
College, Hillsdale, Michigan and was a native of Indiana and a graduate of

Purdue University in Mechanical Engineering.

He also was awarded a Master

of Science degree in Physics from Purdue and a Master of Mechanical Engin—

eering degree from Cornell University.

At the time he came to the Univ-

ersity the Second World War had just concluded, and he faced a department

with only one employee and a handful of students.

Under his leadership the

department grew in a few short years to an enrollment of over 550 students

and a well qualified faculty.

*Absence explained


_ — ::~,v:-...u_._


‘ ;









Minutes of the University Senate, February 11, 1974 — cont

Professor Penrod was quite active in academic affairs and was very I
close to the students. He was instrumental in bringing to the campus .fi,
the Lambda Chapter of Pi Tau Sigma, the Honorary Mechanical Engineering €”
Fraternity, and further participated in many other student activities, I
including the Student Branch of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ‘
He was an active member of the Society of Sigma Xi, the Kentucky Academy
of Sciences, the University of Kentucky Research Club and the University
Faculty, forerunner of the present University Senate. Professor Penrod
was awarded the Doctor of Science degree from Hillsdale College in 1956.

He was chief of party of the University participation in the A.I.D. program
to Indonesia in 1957. After his retirement in 1960 he taught for four
years at the University of Illinois and for two years at the University of
Evansville at Evansville, Indiana.

Professor Penrod instilled a sense of honor and dignity to both
students and faculty and will always be remembered for his fair dealing
and his efforts to challenge his students and associates to the larger ;g
goals in life. His influence over the lives of his students is impossible gfl.
to measure. As a sign of their affection for him they once gave him w
a gold watch as a surprise gift. Also, in his honor a student—faculty ‘
show was named "The Heat Pump Follies", in recognition of his basic
research on heat pumps.

He was noted for his work in the thermal sciences, having contributed \
greatly to the literature in the fields of solar energy and refrigeration.
He presented papers at International Congress of Refrigeration meetings in
Paris,France5 Copenhagen,Denmark; and Munich, Germany. Requests for his
publications have come from nearly every part of the world.

And so it is with great regret that we mark the passing of this fine
gentleman and scholar. The faculty of the College of Engineering, therefore,
wishes to express to Mrs. Penrod its deep sympathy and sorrow in the passing
of this beloved teacher and friend. ,

Be it therefore resolved that this resolution be spread on the «E
minutes of the Engineering Faculty and the University Senate and that a t.“
copy of our tribute be sent to his widow. h

Chairman Smith announced that letters had been received from Mrs. Agnes l
K. Pickett, widow of Dr. Ralph Pickett, and from Mr. Robert E. Weaver, son of
Dr. Ralph Weaver, thanking the Senate for the Resolutions on the deaths of
Dr. Pickett and Dr. Weaver. 1

The Chairman then introduced the members of the Senate Council and asked
that they stand as their names were called. They are: Mrs. Constance P. Wilson; '
Dr. Joseph Krislov; Dr. J. Robert Ogletree; Dr. William Wagner; Dr. Stephen Diachun;
Dr. Fred Zechman; Dr. Malcolm Jewell; Dr. Robert W. Rudd; Dr. Paul G. Sears; Pro—
fessor Paul Oberst; student body President James Flegle; Mr. Damon Harrison; y
and Margaret Mason.

to honor retiring faculty members will be held on April 8, 1974; that 46 faculty
members from the Medical Center and the Division of Colleges will be retiring;

and that further written information concerning the hour, place, cost, etc. will

The Chairman announced that the third annual faculty Recognition Dinner ‘53“
be forthcoming. '



ars. ,




tn; '



Minutes of the University Senate, February 11, 1974 — cont



The Chairman gave the following summary of activities of the Senate Council

since the last report which was given at the December 10, 1973 meeting.

The Council has had perhaps a half dozen meetings with the President
or other administrators since the last Senate meeting. These have dealt
with a number of items, frequently in some detail. One specific item
was the appointment of a search committee for the Dean of the College of
Medicine. In addition, there have been at least two meetings with the
President, one of them including the Senate Council and one of them with
only part of the Senate Council present in which the President met with
the chairmen of the standing committees of the Senate. It was the Council's
feeling that as we go into the new organization of this Senate, as established
under the Jewell Report passed last year, the standing committees will be
playing an increasingly important role and it will become increasingly
necessary that these people have liaison with the appropriate administrative
officers and vice versa. Therefore, there has been some active effort to
implement that contact. Several of these meetings have dealt with the
status of the budget in its various stages of development; others have
dealt with various legislative actions and activities that are of interest
to the faculty. A considerable length of time was spent dealing with the
question of the status of graduate programs which are pending before the
Senate or will soon come to it. Two items of significance were reported
to us and a request was received from the President and I am pleased to
report to you that the President has informed the Senate Council that he
is accepting and taking action to implement the majority of those recom—
mendations made to him as a result of this body's actions on the Lowitt
Report dealing with the status of graduate students. There are a few of
them which are outside our legal ability to act, a few of them which require
legal considerations, and these have been referred to the appropriate bodies.
But all of those recommendations which could be implemented by administrative
action either have been or will be shortly. The details precisely of those
can be obtained from the Senate Council Office.

Secondly we have received a request from the President, in one of these
meetings, upon which we have initiated action. That request was both an
indication of the action the Administration will take and the request
for action on the part of the Senate. It dealt specifically with the
question of admissions. The President's Planning Commission, under the
direction of Dr. Paul Sears, will be engaged in a massive program to
collect data and to provide the reference bases that are needed to make
decisions in the area of admissions. The Senate has been requested to deal
with fundamental questions as to criteria, policies, and appropriate
matters of judgmental sorts. This has already been referred to the standing
Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards and is well under way.

One of the major areas of discussion at a number of the meetings with
the President, and which is germane to the discussions today, deals with
the question of tenure, promotion, appointment and related matters. Both
the Senate Council and the Committee chairmen have discussed these matters
at length with the President, not only the Krislov Report area but all other
areas, and I think, perhaps, it is germane, given the level of rumors on this
campus, to repeat or reiterate two statements that we have received from
the President. One is a flat categorical statement. There have been 39
statements issued by the administration of this University instituting
quotas. There have been 22 statements issued by this University suggesting
quotas. There have been no actions whatsoever of any kind. Secondly,

















Minutes of the University Senate, February ll, 1974 — cont

there have been no specific directions given to the Area Committees that

are any different from the directions that they have received every year.

We have guidelines specifying criteria for appointment, promotion and
tenure. They are encouraged to interpret those and act upon them as
appropriate. There seems to be general assumption, extant, which the
Council and the Committee Chairmen have explored with the President, that
strange things are happening. To the best of our knowledge and flat
statements from the President and other administrative officials indicate
that these rumors are not true. And I think it is noteworthy that we should
indicate so at this point.

The Council has engaged in other activities besides spending a lot of
time talking with the President. We, of course, have received and reviewed
the schedule for today's business which you have. We have also received
and scheduled a variety of items for action at the March meeting. In
addition to the Krislov Report there will be a recommendation from the
College of Arts and Sciences to change the Governing Regulations. This
recommendation is designed to allow them to establish an Assembly in
which students or other non—faculty members may participate. We will
also receive at the March meeting, tentatively, the remaining items
from the Lowitt Report. As you may remember there were several items
in the Lowitt Report which were referred to the Graduate Council for their
advice and recommendations prior to coming to the floor of the Senate.

We have received recommendations from the Graduate Council on these issues
and we will bring them to you on the Senate floor in March, unless there
is some change. There were two items in the Lowitt Report which were
passed on the floor of this Senate and were sent to the Graduate Council
for their response, action, and recommendations. They have received them
and informed us of their opinions on the subject.

Finally, there will be a recommendation, we hope, for a change in
academic structure. The change will be to convert the Division of
Ophthalmology in the Department of Surgery into a department. This re-
quires an action by this body recommending to the President and we will
hope to bring that to you in March.

The Senate Council has also met fairly extensively with Dean Daniel
Reedy, attempting to clarify a number of procedural problems dealing
with the Senate's General Studies Committee which has various charges,
and the charges to the Undergraduate Council, and these are well in hand.

We have had occasion to appoint a new Committee Chairman. Dr. Richard
Gift has asked to be relieved of his duties as Chairman of the Student
Affairs Committee for personal reasons and the Senate Council has accepted
his resignation and has appointed Betty Rudnick as Chairman of that

That about summarizes the activities of the Council. There is an
additional announcement to be made that I note I left out under announce-
ments. It has been in the press and has been circulated but we should
make it official. The results of the election conducted during the Fall
Semester and into the first part of the Spring Semester to elect a faculty
member to the Board of Trustees to replace Professor Paul Oberst beginning
July 1, 1974 resulted in the election of Professor Michael Adelstein.



Minutes of the University Senate, February ll, 1974 — cont 3718

It has also been traditional over the last two or three years that
when the new Senate Council Chairman assumes the office, he delivers some
{ remarks from the Chair. I have thought about this for the last six
E? weeks or so and one of the thoughts that crossed my mind was that after
I six years in this body I have said an awful lot of things at one time or
another and there is some question as to whether saying them one more time
would be useful. But after looking at the agenda it became obvious that
there simply was not time for it so, if you will, I will defer that obliga-
tion, duty, or privilege to some later date and we will get on with the

1d 1 substantive matters before us.

‘ Following a request from the floor that the Senate be informed concerning
d { the implementation of the Lowitt Report by including in these minutes an appro—

priate summary of the actions that have been taken relating to that Report, Dr.
Smith agreed to include the information in these minutes, and that information
is attached as an Addendum. He stated that most of the recommendations dealt
with administrative matters that will be issued as Administrative Regulations
yr; or other appropriate directives from the President.

* The Chairman then called on Dr. Joe Logan Massie to present the honorary
candidates for degrees at the May 1974 Commencement and again stressed the

7 importance of confidentiality of the names of these persons. Dr. Massie presented

‘ five candidates for honorary degrees. Following his presentation, the Senate

r approved a motion to accept the five proposed candidates for recommendation to

9 the President and Board of Trustees with the request that the names be withheld

until the Board has taken action and the nominees have accepted.

On behalf of the Senate Council and the Committee on Admissions and Academic
Standards Professor Constance Wilson, Secretary of the Senate Council, presented
a motion that Section IV—4, subparagraph 2.24 College 2f_Dentistry, Rules 2:
the University Senate, be changed to read as follows and be effective immediately.

This proposed change in the admission requirements to the College of Dentistry
was circulated to the faculty under date of January 21, 1974.


\r 2.24 College of Dentistry: The requirements for admission to the
efifl~ College of Dentistry of the University of Kentucky reflect the
Y‘fi «V

adoption of the standards set forth by the Council on Dental Education.
1 These appear in the ”Procedures for Evaluation, Requirements and
Guidelines for Dental Education Programs" (May 1971). Because of
1 the academic requirements of the dental curriculum, it is usually
necessary for the applicant to have completed at least two years of
, preprofessional education. The majority of students accepted will
d 4 have three or four or more years of preparation. In general, the
less academic preparation an applicant presents, the stronger his
performance and/or experience must be. Students should demonstrate
their competence to undertake the biological and physical science
courses of the dental curriculum. However, specific courses in the
basic sciences during the undergraduate curriculum are not required
r of applicants. Applicants for admission must furnish information
regarding their character, the quality of their preprofessional

it education, health status and aptitude for and interest in a career
5% in dentistry.



The Senate voted to approve the change in admissions requirements to the College
of Dentistry as circulated.









Minutes of the University Senate, February 11, 1974 - cont

On behalf of the Senate Council Professor Wilson presented a recom—
mendation that the University Senate approve the Selective Admissions Proposal
for the College of Architecture (circulated to the faculty under date of
January 23, 1974) to be effective with the 1975 Fall Semester. A number of
questions was raised on the floor of the Senate to which Dean Eardley reponded.
A Senator asked if there was anything in the report of the University Task
Force on Admissions that would have any particular bearing on changing the
attitudes and opinions of the Senate in their consideration of this particular
document. Chairman Smith responded that the essence of that report was that
it would be both unwise and undesirable for the University to have a single
University—wide admission standard and that it would be better off dealing on
an individual programatic basis. He stated that it contained suggestions of
areas that ought to be explored and data that ought to be gathered and that this
is what Dr. Sears' Committee, together with the Senate's appropriate committees,
are now engaged in doing. He then called on Dr. Ockerman, a member of the
Task Force on Admissions, to state his opinion. Dr. Ockerman's remarks follow:

I think there are some things we have to keep in mind when we look
at such matters as this proposal or any other proposals. When this
effort was begun some two years ago we were in an entirely different
ballgame than we are right now. When the President suggested that a
task force be put together to look at matters concerning controlling en—
rollment, this institution had absorbed for two years running a nine to
10 percent increase in enrollment, so obviously there was some need to
look at the over—all picture. When it was looked at by college, we found
that in the Colleges of Allied Health Professions and Nursing the enrollment
was increasing even more rapidly so some kinds of decisions had to be made.
Concerning the task force and its basic recommendations and trying to
look at some kind of pattern that would serve this institution well over
a long period of time I would say that there were some good recommendations.
In the report we did recommend that before we attempted to establish any
means of controlling enrollment certain steps should be taken. One of
the recommendations was that we look very carefully at what kind of de—
cision or what kind of admissions policy we are considering. This in—
stitution has maintained open enrollment of undergraduate colleges for
a long period of time. If we, unit by unit, were to become engaged in
the process of controlling enrollment, then perhaps the decision was
being made by this process, but that maybe it would be better to look at
it on an over-all basis of what we were really talking about in terms
of keeping the institution open to the residents of this Commonwealth and
to a limited number of people outside the Commonwealth. Another recom—
mendation was that we get involved in a more significant way perhaps
than we have in the past by asking the academic units to assess as carefully
and objectively and as completely as they could where they stood regarding
enrollment in their units. While we have not been engaged in depth in that
study up to this point, the Senate Council has been charged with the re-
sponsibility of looking again at some of these recommendations and trying
to get this matter on track.

I think I would point out, not speaking as such against the Arch—
itecture proposal, two additional things that perhaps ought to be kept
in mind. In addition to the fact that the Senate Council has now been
asked to become involved in this process in some depth, I think we ought
to consider that we are, by steps we have taken or by steps we are in the
process of taking, going counter to what is occurring pretty much across

the country.








Minutes of the University Senate, February 11, 1974 — cont 3720

As you know, our enrollment at the University has, for all intents and
purposes, stabilized or leveled off. In some areas it has decreased.

Many institutions are now looking and restudying very carefully the
enrollment picture and how they can expand the enrollment and access to

the institution rather than contracting it. I believe you are familiar with
the steps that have been taken within the Registrar's Office to simplify
the admissions process-—particularly for Kentucky residents——eliminating

a great deal of the paper work but keeping in mind that there are certain
levels of quality and standards that have to be preserved. When we

look at the statistics——and the College of Architecture has a great
many—-from an over-all standpoint it seems that we are getting a pretty
good quality of student into the institution at the present time; therefore,
if we are talking about improving quality, perhaps as the recommendations
of the Undergraduate Council suggested, some of their negative pieces,

these means ought to be explored before we expand the control pieces within
the University.

On question from the floor of whether the Senate would have any other sel-
ective admissions proposals coming to it this year, Chairman Smith replied
that while he could not speak for the whole University he knew of nothing else
in the way of selective admissions that would be forthcoming; that there was
nothing in the Senate Council Office, nothing had been assigned to Admissions
and Academic Standards, and that he knew of nothing that had been passed by a
College faculty.

Dean Eardley gave the Senators the following additional information to that
contained in the proposal:

Since the time of the proposal submitted by the College of Architecture
there has been one significant new survey of Colleges of Architecture
throughout the North American continent including the schools in Canada.

And it might be useful to you to tell you some of the essential things
that have come out of that.

Kentucky is now the 13th largest School of Architecture on the North
American continent and there are some 90 schools in the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Architecture in the United States and Canada. We
also have the sixth worst student—faculty ratio in the entire North
American continent. In addition, the growth rate in the Colleges of
Architecture has been a constant 15 per cent for the last three years and
every indication is that it will go on at that rate or some similar rate
for an indefinite future unless something is done about it. So we face
a real crisis unless we have this kind of regulation.

One last thing is that there are substantially more schools and sub-
stantially more state schools involved in one form or another of selective
admission, than we had indicated in our proposal document of the fall.

The later figures show a considerable increase and if you would care to
have it, I can document it for you.

Finally, when we had completed our proposal, we sent it to all the
relevant people in the profession in the state: to the President of the
Kentucky Society of Architects, all of the local chapter presidents,
liaison officers with the school, and finally to the State Board of Examiners
and Registration of Architects. Without exception, the response we had

from them was approval and support. And again, these letters can be made
available to anyone who is interested.
























3721 Minutes of the University Senate, February 11, 1974 — cont

On question of how we rank with these schools in the number of graduates each
year Dean Eardley responded that he did not think the figures have changed
substantially in this last report from the ones that were used in the previous
report and that were indicated in their proposal. He stated that the average
annual graduating percentage of the total enrollment was something like 8.8
per cent nationally and they had recently been holding a nine per cent grad—
uating class; that is nine per cent of the total enrollment graduates each
year. He stated that in the schools that do regulate enrollment the average
graduating class is 16.1 per cent of the total enrollment, and the best

school in this respect, the Rhode Island School of Design, is graduating 23.4
per cent of its total enrollment per year, and has a five—year full—time program.

On question of an explanation of the statement in the proposal which states

". . . The Admissions Committee would be composed of 50% faculty and 50% studentsf'
Dean Eardley replied that they have five elected student members who sit in their
faculty meetings and who also vote; these five would form the nucleus of their
Admissions Committee; that the Admissions Committee will be the entire faculty

and will be the entire elected student group. He stated further that when

the actual processing begins they would have many more students involved

than simply those five; and that it would effectively be 50—50 because

for every member of the faculty employed in the procedure the elected student
representatives would be invited to co-opt a corresponding student.

Question was asked that of the theoretical 75 who start, how many are
likely to end up in the program five years later. Dean Eardley responded that
it would be at least double the number who do presently; that at this moment
in time they could reasonably well accommodate 75 students and he would be
disappointed if they did not graduate 50 of that initial 75; and that the
College is not accomplishing anything like such a figure at this moment in time.

In answer to other questions directed to Dean Eardley he made the following
additional remarks.

If this body passes the proposal, the University of Kentucky will
have the most elaborate testing system of any school in the nation.
The student—faculty ratio will be something close to 12 to one. At
the present moment the worst student—faculty ratio is in Texas at Ar—
lington with 34.6 students per member of faculty, second is New Mexico
with 32, third is Oklahoma State with 30, fourth is Nebraska with 26.5,
fifth is Iowa with 25, and finally sixth is Kentucky with 23.2 students
per member of faculty. When Kentucky gets to a reasonable enrollment
we will be much closer to 12 students which will put us close to Pratt
Institute in New York, Cooper Union, Cincinnati, and Rhode Island School
of Design. I expect all kinds of nice things to come out of this proposal.
In terms of quality we could be one of the top schools in the country.

Question was asked of whether or not cutoff scores will be used in the instru-
ments to be employed in determining admission. Dean Eardley replied that there
would be no cutoff scores in any one of those individual instruments; that

a judgment would be made based on the total information they have at hand
rather than on cutoffs at any point.


 Minutes of the University Senate, February 11, 1974 — cont 3722

On question of what Dean Eardley would consider as a reasonable time limit for
the College to have use of the proposed testing instruments and report back

to the Senate on the results of the proposal, he replied that he would think
they should have some fairly reliable statistics in about three years; further,
that they would be making their own assessment of the effectiveness of the
tests and would be glad to report the results to the Senate.

Motion was then made to amend the motion on the floor to require the
College of Architecture to submit to the Senate, after it has administered
the program for three years, evidence to substantiate the viability, justi—
fication, and legitimacy of the tests being used in the screening process.
The Senate defeated this amendment.

Mr. Keller Dunn, Associate Dean of Admissions, was recognized by the Chair.

Mr. Dunn stated that he thought it very important to point out to the Senate
that the motion on the floor contained in it provisions which permitted the

College of Architecture to do two things:

1. It would give the College authority to admit out—of—state
freshmen with grade point averages or ACT scores lower than those
required for admission to the University.

2. It contained a provision which would permit the College of Arch—
itecture to admit transfer students with below a C grade point average
in college work, and this is below the level contained in the Univ—
ersity Senate Rules for admission of transfer students.

He stated further that he thought it important that this be made clear at the
time the proposal was passed, if it was passed, so that the College of Arch—
itecture and the Admissions Office would know and it would be a matter of
record that the Senate had indeed authorized the College of Architecture

to make these exceptions.

Dean Eardley