xt79cn6z0g0k https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt79cn6z0g0k/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1970-11-16  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, November 16, 1970 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 16, 1970 1970 1970-11-16 2020 true xt79cn6z0g0k section xt79cn6z0g0k 3047


The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, November
16, 1970 in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Plucknett presided.
Members absent: Staley F. Adams*, Melvin Albaum, Arnold D. Albright, Robert
Aug*, Charles Auvenshine*, Albert S. Bacdayan*, Charles E. Barnhart, Robert
H. Biggerstaff, Harold R. Binkley*, O. E. Bissmeyer, Jr.*, Harry M. Bohannan,
Frederick Bollum, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Garnett L. Bradford*, Betty J. Brannan*,
Bob Brecht, Herbert Bruce, Collins W. Burnett*, Marion A. Carnes*, Clyde
R. Carpenter*, Ralph S. Carpenter*, Richard A. Chapman*, MauriCe A. Clay,
William B. Cotter*, Raymond H. Cox*, Eugene C. Crawford, Jr.*, Glenwood L.
Creech, James E. Criswell*, M. Ward Crowe*, Marcia A. Dake*, George W.
Denemark*, Ronald C. Dillehay, R. Lewis Donohew*, Doane Fischer, Eugene
B. Gallagher*, Wesley P. Garrigus, Hans Gesund*, Charles P. Graves, Ward 0.
Griffen*, John V. Haley*, Joseph Hamburg, Denny 0. Harris, Charles F.
Haywood*, A. J. Hiatt*, Donald L. Hochstrasser, John W. Hutchinson, Mary
F. James*, Willism S. Jordan, Jr.*, Don Kirkendall*, Aimo J. Kiviniemi*,
Donald A. Knapp*, James A. Knoblett*, Bruce E. Langlois, Harold R. Laswell,
Thomas J. Leonard, Rey M. Longyear*, Donald L. Madden*, Paul Mandelstam*,
Ernest P. McCutcheon*, George E. Mitchell, Jr.*, Theodore H. Mueller*,
Louis A. Norton*, James R. Ogletree*, Blaine F. Parker*, Harold F. Parks*,
Bobby C. Pass*, Robert W. Penman*, Lloyd F. Redick*, Donald A. Ringe*,
Virginia Rogers*, Robert W. Rudd*, Donald S. Shannon*, Ian Shine*, Leonard
P. Stoltz*, Thomas B. Stroup, John L. Sutton, Sidney Ulmer*, Harwin L.
Voss*, John N. Walker*, M. Stnaley Wall, Charles A. Walton*, Daniel L. Weiss*,
Cornelia B. Wilbur*, Constance P. Wilson*, and Fred Zechman*.

The Senate gave permission to Mr. Tom Meng and Mr. Ben Fletcher, student
members of the Tri—Partite Committe and the Student Advisory Committee, and
Mr. Gatewood Galbraith, a student, to attend the meeting.

Chairman Plucknett read the following letter which had been received
from Mrs. Paulina F. Sloan, widow of Dr. Denver Sloan, deceased:

2841 Southview Dr.
Lexington, Kentucky
November 7, 1970

Dr. Elbert W. Ockerman

Dean of Admissions and Registrar
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

Dear Dr. Ockerman:

Thank you for sending me the copy of the resolution honoring Denver.
It is abeautifultribute and I am deeply appreciative.


(s) Paulina F. Sloan
(Mrs. Denver Sloan)

*Absence explained








 7“ fig.;.3.,.¢vw~w-.xw


Minutes of the University Senate, November 16, 1970


The Senate approved the minutes of October 12 and October 29, 1970 .
as circulated. ' My;
‘i. [A
On behalf of the College of Social Professions, Dean Ernest F. Witte '
read a resolution on the death of Mrs. Dorothy Root Bier with the recommen—
dation that the resolution be spread upon the minutes. The Senate stood
for a moment of silence in respect to Mrs. Bier and in acceptance of the
resolution. 7

Born April 19, 1910
Died October 22, 1970

Social Work Practitioner, Teacher, Scholar, Wife, and Mother

WHEREAS, Dorothy Root Bier was born in Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania,
with her twin brother, Delroy M. Root. She married Carl Bier and both
graduated from the University of Kentucky in 1932, where she was an Eng— ,51\
lish major and a member of Alpha Xi Delta Sorority. In 1934 she re— “1
ceived her MSW degree from Western Reserve University. '

She experienced a long, successful working career in family agencies
in New Orleans, New York, Detroit, and, finally, in Atlanta where she
was Director of Case Work Services from 1952 to 1966, when she and her
husband came to Lexington.

Her colleagues said of her, ”She was a rare combination of many
wonderful qualities that affected and enriched the lives of hundreds

of persons — clients, staff, board, and others. Her contributions will
live with many and be passed on to many more."

In 1967, Dorothy Bier was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of

Social Work and later in the new College of Social Professions. She V
developed syllabi and taught several of the undergraduate classes.
With the development of the new College of Social Professions, she «EHK
performed the time—consuming, but invaluable, task of compiling a R
list of the complete holdings of social work and closely related
publications in the University libraries and assessed these in
relation to all known lists of publications recommended for libraries.

Her quiet dedication to her students' welfare, her dedicated reading
and research to find any and all possible kinds of materials for use
by her students, and her conscientious day—to—day devotion to tasks
1 , which required patience and persistence is a contribution that not
= ‘ only has already helped the current students and faculty, but which will
be useful to new students and faculty in the years to come. She
was a woman whose gentle manner, quiet warmth, and depth of feeling
for humankind will long remain in the memories of those who knew her.

She has been loved and cherished by her husband, Carl, her son, Jeff,
and daughter—in—law, Mary Ann, hergranddaughter, Andre, her sister, ‘
Louise, her brother, Delroy, and her friends in the Lexington community.


Her students and colleagues will long remember her because of the human
warmth with which she touched their lives.




Minutes of the University Senate, November 16, 1970

NOW THEREFORE, the College Council, representing students and faculty
colleagues of Dorothy Bier, do hereby register their love and appreciation
of her and the contributions she made during her life and express our
sense of loss because of her death.

The College Council

College of Social Professions

November 4, 1970
The Dorothy Bier Memorial Fund has been established in her honor in the
College of Social Professions.

Dr. Stephen Diachun, Secretary of the Senate Council, presented an amendment
to the 1970 and 1971 fall semester University Calendars to revise the final
examination schedule for the 1970 fall semester so that the examinations
originally scheduled for Wednesday, December 23, 1970 be rescheduled on
Wednesday, December 16, 1970; and further, that the final examination period
for the fall semester of 1971 be rescheduled so that the last day of final
examinations shall be December 22, 1971. The amendment was seconded.

Following discussion, Mr. Steve Bright presented an amendment to the amendment
which relates to the fall semester of 1970 as follows:

Any students who feel that this provision will result in an undue
hardship for them may arrange to take the examination rescheduled for
December 16th, at another time, without sanction.

He further recommended that the Senate Council set a date for the 1971 fall
semester which would incorporate the same type of provision and offer it
as an amendment at another time.

The Senate vetoed this amendment in its entirety by a hand count of 68 to
45. ’

Mr. John Nelson, student member, presented an amendment to the original
motion as presented by Dr.Diachun, to strike any reference to the 1971 fall
semester from that motion. The Senate approved this amendment.

The Senate then vetoed the original motion as presented by Dr. Diachun, and

Dr. Sheldon Rovin, Vice Chairman of the Senate Council, referred the
Senate to the proposal circulated to the faculty under date of November 3,
1970 which provided for the possible establishment of ad_hgg_committees to
study certain areas, namely, those of class scheduling and the credit system,
the University grading system, and provision for accelerated programs.
Chairman Plucknett stated that it was not necessary that the Senate take
any action on these prOposals; that if it felt these were worthwhile areas
to be studied, the Council would proceed to circulate to the faculty a
request for the names of those faculty members who would like to serve on
these ad hoc committees, as well as a request to the faculty to name any
other areas it would like to have studied, in depth. No objections were
voiced by the Senate.


On question by the Chairman of any new action business which any one
might wish to present, Dr. Gene Mason of the Department of Political Science
stated that he wished to present the following resolution for the consideration

of the Senate regarding the role of the University in relationship to












 . .

. 515:





. . . .- . . V . . N . . (- J.~:~1-Y—.‘ n a,a:.~;¢.y.9..w~m :- reau’wrwwerk‘y'UYWV“? gtflfi‘mmfiw‘j"it‘rfimé‘e-Arwww“._.
,...“\\‘.x .05... ”duh”; , _ . 1.. .. , ..,.‘~.._ . .. .. .\ . .

Minutes of the University Senate, November 16, 1970

investigations by law enforcement agencies of the content of class discussions.
He reported that the Department of Political Science had adopted the resolu—
tion at an earlier date.

It is the sense of the University Senate that the right to free
and open discussion of ideas is imperative to the learning process; that
the interrogation of students about the content of class discussion
by law enforcement officers can have the effect of intimidating
students and can be destructive of the learning situation; and that the
University of Kentucky has an obligation to students, faculty and
the people of the Commonwealth to promote the free discussion of
ideas; and that the University of Kentucky should refrain from re—
leasing class rolls and other University records to law enforcement
agencies if the use of such information is to inquire into the
content of class discussions.

On question, he stated that the resolution was necessitated by the fact

that there had been no substantive change in University policy concerning
the release of such information since the questions of the FBI investiga—
tion arose this semester. He stated further that if the resolution was
passed as the sense of the Senate it would be up to the President to
determine whether or not he wished in his policies to conform to that

sense; that if he so decided then it would be incumbent upon him or

someone designated by him to inquire as to the purpose of the use of a class
roll when such a request was made by law enforcement agencies; and further,
that if the purpose of the use of that class roll involved questioning stu—
dents regarding the content of class discussion, the President would

refuse to release that information. He stated further that this would
place him in a position where he could effectively test the constitutionality
of the present Kentucky Revised Statute requiring that he release to law
enforcement agencies all information regarding student records.

On request, Mr. Mason then read relevant parts of the Kentucky Revised
Statute passed at the last session of the State Legislature concerning
student academic records.

All student academic records shall be confidential with the
exception of the exemptions stated in sub—sections three through nine
of this Section and shall not be released by any publicly supported
institution of higher education in Kentucky to any persons,
organization, institution, group or agency without the expressed
consent of the individual student.

Sub—section five of sub—sections three through nine states the following:

All student records shall be made available upon request to
any federal, state or local law enforcement agency and any court of

The other sub—sections of that Statute deal primarily with requests for
academic records for applications for scholarships, fellowships,_e£ cetera.

In discussion that followed President Singletary stated that while such a
resolution did not commit him to any given case, he intended to look at any
cases, should they recur; Dr. Sears pointed out that the oath of office

taken by the President of the University charged him to uphold the laws of


Minutes of the University Senate, November 16, 1970

the Commonwealth and that he should not be committed to take any stand that

would be contrary to the present law; Dr. Olshewsky stated that his sense

of the resolution as read was that the Senate stands behind the President

in defense of academic freedom. In view of the apparent conflict of inter—

pretations of the resolution as presented, Dr. Lienhard recommended that the

Senate place a period after the phrase ”free discussion of ideas, and strike
the remainder of the resolution. This recommendation was seconded.

Dr. Mason stated that he thought the passage of this amendment would effectively
”gut” the substance of the resolution. He said further that since he was the
one who had introduced the proposal and was also the one who was most involved
and directly concerned with the investigation he would like to try and
convince the Senators that each of them shared equally in that involvement.

He stated that from the information he had there was not any intent on the
part of any FBI agent to intimidate either his students or him or the learning
situation in which the faculty attempted to involve itself; however, this
clearly had been the consequence. He stated that the two students who were
interrogated in mid—October, and who are ordinarily quite loquaceous, did

not say anything in class for the next month until finally one of them came

to his home on a Saturday afternoon to speak to his wife —— since he was a
closer friend to her than to him —- about the FBI; that after their discussion
she asked that he discuss it with Dr. Mason. Dr. Mason stated that that
student was really scared that the FBI was questioning him about what was
being said in class. He stated further that another student in that class,
who worked full—time -— one who had not been interrogated —— had told him

that his boss had said to him that if he did not drop the seminar he would

be fired from his job. Dr. Mason stated that these incidents occurred, it
seemed to him, to the detriment of the free discussion of ideas and what

all of the faculty believed are the desirable consequences that flow from
open inquiry. He said further that while none of these consequences, it
seemed to him, were intended by either the relevant members of the University
administration or the members of the FBI, they did occur and they could
happen again and they could happen again in cases involving the students

of other faculty members in their own classrooms. He stated that he felt

it was important enough that the faculty try to avoid that in as strong a
way as they could and he thought that the last section of the resolution

was not equivocal at all; that it stated clearly what the sense of the University
Senate is regarding this, and he urged its adoption.

Dr. Adelstein raised four questions addressed to Mr. Mason:
1. Who decides what the purpose or intent of the law enforcement agency is?

2. Why have you written this as the "content" of class discussion? I
think that the substance of class discussion is the "trial of Socrates"
and if some student in class makes a remark about the Crossen trial
and that bombing might result from this trial, the inquiry is into

the substance of class discussion which is the ”trial of Socrates” and
the FBI would be entitled to inquiry of the student because it does

not come within the purview of the content of class discussion.

3. Why do you feel it is necessary for the President of the University
to test the constitutionality of this law and not some other group
such as ACLU, AAUP, or even Gene Mason?










 é“ .‘V‘M‘I‘yi‘fiw‘f'f'?’ ' . '.: :- :, - i . 7' 39‘“??? ray-:‘rvvs-A-nrw.


Minutes of the University Senate, November 16, 1970


4. To what extent in the protection of lives and property, of }
students and instructors, does a law enforcement agency have the 63‘
right to conduct an investigation?

Mr. Mason replied in answer to the first question that he thought the Presi—
dent had the responsibility to determine the use; that when a law enforce— ;
ment agent requested such information, it would be the President's
responsibility, if he agreed with the sense of the Senate, to ask to
what use the information was to be put and if he learned through that
asking that it involved questioning students regarding the content of
class discussion, he should refuse to release it. 7

In answer to the third question Mr. Mason stated that his first reaction 9

was that he himself would test the constitutionality; that he thought

about it for a long time and discussed it with lawyers and was advised

that he did not have the standing to sue and further, that he thought

it would do a lot for the University of Kentucky and for the Common—

wealth for the University administration to do it and not him or the 6w?!
ACLU; that he thought it would be very healthy for the University. 'fl

His answer to the fourth question was that either open discussion of

ideas in the classroom be respected, without qualification, or not
M . respected; that the University cannot be complicit, much less cooperative,
{ ,£.-3 in actions that have the consequence of intimidating that process. He
J V stated that he felt the classroom, and the learning situation in the
classroom, is a very sacred thing and that the University should exercise
as much vigilance as it can to be sure that it is able to maintain that
against even the slightest encroachment.

Professor Sedler enumerated his reasons for supporting the inclusion ,
»?1‘ of the last phrase of the resolution. 5

Dr. Hanau pointed out that Dr. Mason had not answered the second r
question asked by Dr. Adelstein, that of what is meant by the ”content” ;
of class discussion. He stated the he_would interpret it to mean anything 45‘
that is discussed in class. ‘Ww

Dr. Mason replied that he was directing himself to the substance of
class discussion; that when they were discussing in his class the modes (
of response to repression and, specifically, bombing as one mode of

response to repression, this was a part of the substance of class

discussion and not an incidental remark made out in the hallway, for


y‘ ;. Professor Oberst said that it seemed to him that the Senate was

1 ”5 at its worst when 200 people tried to deal with a very sensitive case,

5 i which was the present case. He stated that it had been a seven—day. ‘

wonder on this campus; that he understood that an appeal had already 7

been made to the faculty Committee on Privilege and Tenure and he assumed

that that Committee would collect all the facts and make recommendations

to the President; that this was its function. He stated that he felt the H
discussion held thus far indicated very clearly that they were trying to V?*
adjudicate a case which had come before them and he thought that would ‘
be a very bad mistake.




Minutes of the University Senate, November 16, 1970

In response to a question, Dr. Mason stated that the only reason they had
relied on this specific case was because it was the source of the need for
a new policy; that he did not wish, in any way, to have this particular
sense of the Senate resolution to be interpreted as an adjudication

of what is before the faculty Committee on Privilege and Tenure; that

it was intended as a general policy matter; that that was why he had
taken it before his faculty and why his faculty asked him to present it
to the Senate. He reported that he had asked that someone else from his
department introduce the resolution and participate in the discussion but
that they had preferred not to so; thus he had gone ahead and brought it
before the Senate.

Dr. Olshewsky stated that he supported the resolution and that he
would vote against the amendment.

Dr. Stanford Smith said that he was concerned with the motion because
he did not think it talked about what the Senate wanted to talk about.
He stated that he thought Dr. Sears was perfectly correct in his statement
that the President of this institution takes an oath to uphold the laws
of this state; that the problem is to be required to uphold the law
which is violative of academic freedom. He said that he thought the
Senate should go on record as saying so and that he would prefer that the
Senate commend our President for the actions he has taken to date — which
are as far as he can go under the law to protect that academic freedom.
He stated that he would rather see the Senate urge the President and the
Board of Trustees to seek appropriate modification of the laws and require
that law enforcement agencies show cause, which they are not required to
do under the present law.

Dr. Royster stated that he agreed with Professor Oberst; that he
felt the Senate would do well to postpone action on the resolution and
consider it at another time if they felt they should consider it at all.

Dr. Berry stated that he felt that the President ought to be the
faculty's spokesman and defender but that it seemed to him that the last
statement of the resolution tended to make him the faculty's "creature”
and he was for deleting that section of the resolution at the present

President Singletary told the Senators that to what degree the case
in question had had a ”chilling" effect it was his belief that it came
from whatever investigation had been carried out by an outside agency and
not by the University. He stated that under the existing law the law
enforcement agent who appeared before the University to request a record
was ngt_required to give any reasons whatsoever; that the reason he had
asked that any requests from now on be referred to him at his office was
that it would give him an opportunity to see what_he could do to find out
what the nature of the investigation is and to do what he could about the
very facts about which the Senate was concerned. He stated that he was
as concerned as anybody else and that was the purpose of his change in
institutional policy —— to seek what legal counsel and other counsel he
might wish before making a decision. He stated that he would not like for
the faculty to decide what he might or might not have to do in certain

circumstances and that he would not like very much to be placed in the position

of having to decide, in advance, what he might or might not have to do at

some given time in certain circumstances.

.. ..-i_,.......--_.-.- ., x n - ., . .









.warnwwm-gqffi _~ ; ; .