xt7c2f7jqh6z https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt7c2f7jqh6z/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 19700913 minutes English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed.  Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically.  Physical rights are retained by the owning repository.  Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.  For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1970-09-aug13. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1970-09-aug13. 1970 2011 true xt7c2f7jqh6z section xt7c2f7jqh6z 

      Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University
of Kentucky, Thursday, August 13, 1970

      As provided under KRS 164. 170, on call by Governor Nunn the Board of
Trustees met in special session at 2:00 o'clock on Thursday afternoon, August 13,
1970 in Board Rooms D and E on the 18th floor of the Patterson Office Tower with
the following members answering the call of the roll. Governor Louie B. Nunn,
Mr. Jesse M. Alverson, Mr. Thomas P. Bell, Mrs Rexford S. Blazer, Mr.
Richard E. Cooper, Mr. George W. Griffin, Mr. J. Robert Miller, Mr. B. Hudson
Milner, Dr. N. N. Nicholas, Mr. James H. Pence, Mr., Floyd H. Wright, non-
voting faculty members Professors Paul Sears and Robert Rudd, andnon-voting
student member, Mr. Steve Bright. Absent from the meeting were Mr. Albert G.
Clay, former Governor A. B. Chandler, Mr. Wendell P. Butler and Mr. Robert
H. Hillenmeyer. Those attending from the University admmnistration .ncluded
President Otis A. Singletary; Vice Presidents Alvin L. Morris, A, D. Albright,
Glenwood L. Creech, George J. Ruschell, Robert G. Zumwjnkle; and Mr. John C.
Darsie, Legal Counsel. Representatives of the various news media were present.

      A. Meeting Opened

      Governor Nunn called the meeting to order at 2:03 o'clock, The invocation
was pronounced by Governor Nunn and, following call of the roll, the Secretary
reported a quorum present. The meeting was declared officially open for the
conduct of business at 2:05 p. m.

      B. Dr. Willard Named Special Assistant to the Prc_.dent for
Health Affairs and Dr. Peter P. Bosomworth Named V ce President for
the Medical Center (PR 1)

      President Singletary recommended that Dr, William R. Willard, Vice
President for the Medical Center, be named Special Assistant to the President for
Health Affairs, effective October 1, 1970, and that Dr. Peter P. Bosomworth be
named Vice President for the Medical Center at the time that Dr. Willard assumes
his new responsibilities. On motion by Dr. Nicholas, seconded, and passed unani-
mously, the President's recommendation was approved.

      Governor Nunn appointed the following persons to serve on a committee to
draft a resolution expressing appreciation for Dr. W)llard's past contributions: Dr,
N. N. Nicholas, Mrs. Rexford S. Blazer, and former Governor A. B. Chandler,
(See PR 1 at the end of the Minutes. )

      C. Retirement Benefits for Dr. Willard (PR 2}

      Dr. Singletary explained that in order for Dr. Willard to continue to re-
ceive the same retirement benefits as Special Assistant to the President for Health



Affairs to which he was entitled as Vice President for the Medical Center, it
would require special action by the Board of Trustees, All present agreeing that
this was desirable, on motion by Mr, Mdner, seconded by Mr, Cooper, and
passed unanimously, the University of Kentucky was authorized to provide the
same retirement benefits for Dr. William R. Willard in his new administrative
capacity as Special Ass stant to the President for Health Affairs as it provided in
his capacity as Vice President--Med~cal Center. (See PR 2 at the end of the
Minutes. )

       D. Expenses of Repairs to Blazer Hall Authorized (FCR 1)

       Mr. Ruschell explained that the action requested in FCR 1 was necessary
in order to satisfy the provisions of the Bond lndent.ure for the University of
Kentucky Housing and Dining System Revenue Bonds. There being no questions,
on motion by Mr. Pence, seconded by Mrs, Blazer, and passed, the recommen-
dation in FCR I was approved. (See FCR 1 at the. end of the Mirnutes.)

       E. Payment Authorized for Expenses         n     rEuclid
Avenue Classroom Building Fire (FCR 2!

       The recommendation -in FCR 2 being s..mlar to the one. sn FCR 1, on.motion
by Mr. Pence, seconded by Mr. Wright, and pa.ssed without dissent, the recom-
mendation made as a part of FCR 2 was approved. (S. e FCR 2 at the end of the
Minutes. )

       F. Land Transfer at the A-hland Conimunu-tv College Approved (FCR 3)

       There being no questions relatsv( to the tramasfer of land for the purpose of
constructing a parking lot at the Ashland Commumity College, on motion by Mrs.
Blazer, seconded by Dr. Nicholas. and passed, the Board of Trustees approved
the recommendation made as a part of FCR 3, (See: FCR 3 at the end of the

       G. Report of Special Trustees' Commrnttee

       Governor Nunn called upon Mr. Thomas P. Bell, Chai.rman of the Special
Trustees' Committee appointed to review the Stude nt Code in the light of experi-
ences gained in May 1970, for a report from the committee,

       Mr, Bell read the following statement representing the committee's report
and copies of the proposed revision of the Code of Student Conduct were distributed
to those present. A copy of the document appears at the end of the Minutes.



                                                        August 13, 1970


      The committee was appointed at the June, 1970, meeting of the

Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees for the purpose of ex-

amining the rules and regulations of the University and recommending

such changes as may seem desirable Wad necessary. Appointed to serve

with me on this committee were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Griffin, and Mr.


     The committee was asked to direct particular attention to pro-

visions of the Code applicable to emergency situations such as the

distrubance that occurred last Mtay on our campus. It was instructed,

further, to carry out its charge "at the earliest opportunity."

     The recommendations which this committee will place before you

today evolved from many hours of study of the existing Code and

thoughtful consideration of suggestions submitted to the committee

by students, faculty, and staff of the University.

     The committee believes it has taken reasonable steps to enable

students and others in the University to participate in the develop-

ment of its recommendations It has held on the campus two full-day

open hearings to which were invited all persons who wished to present

views to the committee, Every student and faculty member who has

expressed to the committee interest in being heard by the committee has

been given an opportunity to express, fully and freely, his suggestions

and recommendations.



      Subsequent to these hearings, the committee invited several

 students and faculty to meet with it to discuss its preliminary

 conclusions and recommendations. Among the students who accepted

 the committee's invitation wece the President of Student Government,

 the president of the Student Coalition to Prevent Campus Violence,

 the chairman of the graduate division of the Judicial Board, and

 t'he editor of The Kentucky Kernel.

     Many of the recommendations in this report were advocated by

students, faculty, or staff during meetings with the committee.

     There was, to illustrates almost unanimous agreement among the

persons testifying that a Hearing Officer is needed to assist in the

University's judicial processes, that search and seizure provisions

should be redefined, and that the Dean of Students should not be cast

in the role of prosecutor. TZe committee does not imply, however,

that all suggestions which came to it have been incorporated into its

recommendation. Nonetheless, the committee affirms that each of these

suggestions was given careful consideration.

     The committee's recommendations are being presented to you in

the form of a revised Code of Student Conduct. The committee does

not regard this revised document as a set of inviolate polici es and

procedures. In presenting it to you, the committee acknowledges

that the sense of urgency in ccmpleting its assignment before the

beginning of the fall semester prevented refinement which, indeed,

would have been desirable. It recognizes, however, that the Board

has never considered the Code as unalterable and has established a

Student Code Committee to receive and consider recommendations for

changes in its provisions.



     While additional revisions may be necessary, the committee be-

lieves that the revised Code which it is reccnending for Board

adoption is in harmony with the University's educational objectives

and protects its students' legal riglts to free inquiry, expression

and dissent, due process in disciplinary proceedings, and equal

treatment. We believe, further, that it will help assure the

students' full enjoyment of their constitutional liberties, academic

freedom, use of University facilities, and freedom of speech, assembly,

and association. Additionally, some of the recommended revisions will

help ensure against disruption of educational or institutional pro-

cesses and threats to the safety and freedom of all students.

     The proposed changes in the Code may be classified as follows:

(1) those that seek to clarify existing provisions which are unclear

or ambiguous; (2) new provisions which represent only minor re-

visions of, or addition to, existing ones, and (3) new provisions

which represent either significant changes in or additions to the

current Code.

     In the viewpoint of the committee members, the most significant

changes are as follows:

     (1) Section 1.413 provides for the Dean of Students to forvard

reports and evidence concerning disciplinary cases to the Office of

the University Counsel for evaluation and prosecution....   This pro-

vision removes the Dean from his current role in prosecutions.

     (2) Section 1.422 provides for the addition of a Hearing Officer

to be appointed as a non-voting member and to serve as   chairman of

each division of the University Judicial Board.



      (3) Section 1.423 stipulates that the Hearing Officer shall

be a person with traiin.g in the law, possessing at least the

Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent.

      (4) Section 1.425 provide.s for the :-Eearir,;L O. ficer to be

appointed by the President.

    *(5)  Section l.43 stipulates that the Appeals Board shall

exercise original Jurisdiction With regard to all offenses of inter-

ference, coercion and disruption as defined in Article VI, Section 6,

pages 24-27.  Under the provisions of the current Code, jurisdiction

for these offenses rests with the University J-Board.

     (6) Section 1.436 provides for the addition of the Hearing

Officer to the Appeals Board and stipulates that this Officer shall

serve as chairman of the Board.

     (7) Section 1.44 provides for temporary appointments to the

Judicial Board or the Appeals Board to be made by the President

of the University if a sufficient number of the members of either

board are not present at a time when the board has duties to perform.

     (8) Section 1.5 dealing with punishments has been rewritten

with two new categories of punishment, warning (1.51) and dismissal

(1.56), added.

     (9) Section 2.4 specifies that the decision of the University

J-Board shall be final in cases where appeals are made for review

of Residence J-Board's actions.

    *(10) Section 3.21 provides that prior to conducting a search

of a student's person or property the Dean of Students or another

Dean on his staff acting as his authorized representative shall be

required to specify in writing to the Vice President for Student



Affairs the time and place of the searches, the reason for the search,

and the particular property sought to be seized. Exceptions to this

requirement can be made only in cases of imminent danger when it is

necessary to conduct the search immediately to protect life or


      (11) Section 3.319 represents an addition to the existing Code.

It stipulates that a student shall have the right to either an open

or closed hearing, and that to have an open hearing a student must

file a written request with the Hearing Officer at least 24 hours

prior to the time set for the hearing. Further it specifies who

may attend open hearings and provides that the Hearing Officer may

order the removal of any disruptive person from the hearing.

     (12) Section 3.4. This section has been rephrased with sub-

section "C" added. The addition specifies that a student's rights

to freedom of expression are subject to the restriction that he must

obey the University's regulations as to time, place and manner.

     (13) Article IV. Several changes have been made in this section

which deals with student organizations. The principal change is the

addition of a provision (4.12 in the recommended draft), stipulating

that membership in student organizations shall be limited to students,

faculty, and staff of the University, except that honors, leadership,

and recognition societies may include other persons as provided for

in their national constitution.

     Section 4.132 specifies that registration of student organia..

tions is at the discretion of the Dean of Students, who shall

establish uniform criteria and rules which shall be applied for

all similar type organizations.



      Section 4.28 defines as an offense any violation of Univer-

sity rules or policies which apply to registered organizations

or their use of University facilities or property.

      (14) Article VI represents a substantial addition to the

existing Code. All sections under this article deal with inter-

ference, coercion and disruption.

     Section 6.2 defines the administrative authority and responsi-

bility for response when it appears a violation has occured. It

authorizes and directs the University administration to take one

or more of the following actions:

     a. Prefer charges under the Code of Student Conduct.

     b. Impose interim suspension.

     c. Declare a state of emergency.

     d. Make application to the courts for injunctive relief.

     e, Request the assistance of outside law enforcement agencies

         available under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

     f. Take such other actions deemed necessary by the President

         of the University to protect lives and property and pro-

         vide for the orderly operation of the institution.

     Section 6.31 stipulates that the University Appeals Board shall

exercise original jurisdiction over all cases wherein students are

charged with acts of interference, coercion, and disruption.

     Section 6.4 provides for interim suspension of students, for

a period of no longer than seven days, to be imposed by the Presi-

dent of the University, the Vice President for Administration, the

Vice President for Student Affairs, or the Dean of Students when



any one of these officials has reasonable cause to believe

that a student has committed an offense involving coercion,

interference, or disruption. It further stipulates that the

Appeals Board shall docket each case for a prompt hearing.

     Section 6.5 authorizes the President, the Vice President for

Administration, or any other University olicial. specifically de-

signated by the President to declare that a state of emergency

exists on the campus, states the conditions under which such a

declaration shall be made, and stipulates the procedures which may

be implemented ni t.he event of a declaration of a state of emergency.

This provision clearly authorizes the President or, in his absence,

the Vice President for Administration to suspend all mass meetings

and other gatherings as may be reasonably necessary to protect the

safety and welfare of persons on the campus and provide for the

orderly and efficient operation of the University.

     The last addition recommended by this committee is Section

6.6 which states that no person shall have authority to grant

amnesty or to make any promises as to prosecution or non-prosecution

in any court, state or federal, o- before any board to any person

charged with or suspected of violations of Section 6.1 of the re-

vised Code.

     The committee's recommendation of the addition of Article VI

and its various Sections to the Code evolved from the University's

experiences last May in dealing with actions which were incom-

patible with the nature and functions of the University.



      The committee believes that acts of interference, coercion,

 and disruption at the University cannot be tolerated, and that

 this new section of the Ccde authorizes and directs the University

 administration to respond to such acts in an cffective manner.

      The committee further believes that the University of Kentucky,

like other colleges and universities, is in a time of great challenge.

1i it does not meet the challenge of creating its own workable, self-

governing society, then rules and regulations will be imposed upon

it from outside sources.

     The ccmittee believes that adoption by this Board of this re-

vised Code of Student Conduct will help to safeguard and extend the

academic freedom and autonomy which our society has granted to our


     This committee is positive that its proposed revisions to the

Code do not supply a total answer to the complex problems that beset

the University in these often bewildering times. If adopted, this

Code in itself will not prevent disruption on our campus. The key

to a campus free of disruption is responsibility--the responsibility

of our faculty and administrative officers to administer the Code

fir4y and fairly; the responsibility of the students to observe

and comply with the terms of the Code; and the responsibility of our

Board of Trustees to communicate and respond to suggestions for further

change from the students, the faculty, and the administration.

     Ia presenting our recommendations to the Board, this committee

wishes to recognize the unstinting assistance and cooperation it

bas received from students, faculty members, and the administrative



    staff of the University. We have drawn much encouragement from

    the helpful attitude of al of those whose assistance we sought.

    I-e are grateful, too, and wish here to recognize the skilled

    technical assistance made available to the comnittee by the Office

    of the Attorney General.

        In concluding this report, my fellow committee members and I

   wish to acknowledge clearly that the revised Code of Student Conduct

   will place a heavy burden of responsibility upon President Singletary.

   At the same time, we express our complete confidence in Dr. Single-

   tary, our admiration of the leadership he has given the University

   during the past difficult year, and our confident expectation that

   he will exercise his new responsibility under the revised Code in

   equally distinguished fashion.
                               i**. '| |

       Mr. Bell then made the following motion:

            'That the attached copy of the Code of Student Conduct
       be adopted, effective immediately. It is recommended that
       this action be taken with the express proviso that nothing
       contained in this Code be construed as an abdication of the
       authority or responsibilities of the Board of Trustees to
       govern the University as provided by the laws of the
       Commonwealth of Kentucky. "

       His motion was seconded by Dr. Nicholas. Mr. Bright requested per-
mission to speak before a vote was taken. Permission being granted, he read
the following statement:


           "Gentlemen, let me make it quite clear that if this document
      were to be used only in the extreme and bizarre examples which have
      been cited so often as justifications for many of the new provisions
      which are before you today, I would not ask you to vote against
      adoption. The reason is simple, if these provisions were applied



only in such cases, they would never be used at the University of

      But our own experience in light of the recent situation dictates
that I oppose the adoption of the document now before you, and
discuss fully my response to the eventual adoption of it.

      We are fooling ourselves and becoming the victims of an
unhealthy paranoia when we pretend that there are large numbers of
people---within or outside the University community--- determined
to physically destroy the University or to cause injury to individuals
on this campus.

      If there were large numbers of people with such aims, I
seriously doubt if this document- --or any document passed by this
Board---could effectively serve as a deterrent to the threat. Indeed,
an eight-foot high barbed wire fence around the entire campus and
the day-to-day use of armed guards might be the only solution.

      I do not fear this threat, because even if it were to some day
in the distant future become a reality, those few partaking in lawless-
ness and destruction would be quickly arrested, prosecuted and more
than adequately punished by the civil authorities, The Code would
probably not affect them, Certainly, it would not punish them more
severely than the civil authorities in such cases.

     But as I said earlier, I do not feel this threat exists at the
University of Kentucky. At least it didn't before today. The faculty
and students have responded in crisis situations here in the past to
ease tensions and to protect their University.

     Our experience last Mway indicates that these new provisions
will be used against that group of students who love and support this
institution and who have dedicated a great amount of their time and
energy to work for positive, constructive change within it. This
group, Gentlemen, is not dedicated to destroying this University,
but to strengthening it.

     Much of what is being adopted here today is an insult to all

     You are about to remove the all-student Judicial Board from
involvement in what you seem to feel are the most important
disciplinary cases, How else can this be interpreted except as a
clear lack of faith in students? What else could the adoption of this
provision be called except a denial of trial by one's peers?




     Another insult is the provision prohibiting "outsiders" from
membership in University organizations. The myth that students
are all very passive and can be lead around by persons from off the
campus is absurd and an insult to then adults receiving an education

     Students do not act without reason.

     There is only one group of outsiders with the power and
authority to consistently delve into the internal affairs of this
University and spark something which students would not have put
together themselves.

     Gentlemen, I regret to inform you that you are that group.
The adoption of this Code will be that spark; and I assure you that
we can put it together.

     In the adoption of these two provisions you fail to recognize
the student as a human being. I view this as the most serious
shortcoming of any.

     Of course, I must questionthe severe limitations of the right
to dissent. The fear to participate because of what might happen
will help to silence the innocent.

     For again, our experience is that the innocent is often
accused in such instances. Now the nrobability is increased that
the innocent will also be found guilty.

     I submit that this is unjust,

     William L. Shirer cautions us that 'The United States could
be the first nation to go Facist democratically. I

     When is our academic community going to embrace the
concept contained in a statement of Justice Douglas that 'The
First Amendment was not designed to protect just the handing out
of sedatives. I

     When are we going to squarely face the fact and state clearly
and openly that unrest is good because it prevents our society from
dying of stagnation?

     Surely, we realize that self-criticism and dissent are the
secret weapons of a Democracy and any institution within a




      The adoption of these provisions will serve only to drive
moderates to the wall, to turn those now working within the
present structure to more drastic means, perhaps even to
violent activism. I urge you to carefully reconsider your

      Especially disappointing is the fact that although you have
elaborated on offenses and punishments, there is significantly
less change in strengthening the protections of basic individual

      Nothing has been included to protect the innocent against
harassment or misuse and abuse of this Code by University

     I would save my remaining comments until after the
adoption of this document but they would be of little value then.
I think it is important that these matters be considered before
the vote is taken.

      The adoption of this document will put before us, the
students, the question of how people respond when they are
threatened; when they feel their rights are endangered or
severely and unreasonably restricted.

     I realize clearly the unquestionable legal right of this
Board to adopt this document.

     Nevertheless, I must question the legitimacy of this
document and the potential injustices contained within it.

     The Board in recent years has shown a marked departure
from the historical role of Trustees, which was basically the
establishment of policy, supervision of broad financial affairs,
and the selection of executive personnel. The involvement of
this committee in this matter raises serious questions.

     Generally, or at least ideally, a society establishes its
standards of behavior and amends them as is necessary. With
the proper safeguards, the result should be rules and
regulations recognized by the society as both legitimate and

     The society can be expected to live in accordance with
these accepted standards; and, within the concept of "shared
authority" and "shared responsibility", it can be expected to
see that they are generally adhered to by all members of the




     But when faced with regulations which are neither legitimate
or just, the society has but one alternative. It must resist.

     One can hardly expect the concept of "shared responsibility":
to work on this campus without the concept of "shared authority."

     I am talking about that group of students which in the past
has worked to ease tensions and protect their University. Let us
hope that they will continue in their efforts, despite the adoption
of this document. But let us not be surprised if they do not.

     I realize that some within the student body will applaud this
action. Many will be indifferent. But it is difficult--- indeed, it
is impossible---for me to believe that there are large numbers of
students willing to give up their rights without protest.

     As Mr. Bell has pointed out, when we deny the rights of a
few, we have denied everyone their rights.

     I find it impossible to believe that large numbers of students
will sacrifice justice for order.

     I seriously doubt that many have so little confidence in their
fellow students that they are afraid to be tried by an all-student
judicial agency.

     I seriously doubt that many have a lack of confidence in
themselves so overwhelming that it makes them feel unfit to sit on
a judicial agency.

     I find it impossible to believe that many lack so much faith
in their own judgment that they feel unable to determine the validity
of what someone else says, whether from within or outside their

      Gentlemen, I have the utmost confidence in our students.

      This Board---a collection of businessmen and politicians---
is about to hand down regulations which will affect 15 to 18 thousand

      I admire your interest in anddedication to this institution, but
I remind you that not a single person voting for this document will
be affected by its provisions.

     Ask yourselves, would you find it desirable for your community
or your state to be run by a board of 15 individuals who did not live
within it and were not affected by the regulations they enacted?




             Tyranny As not limited to taxation without representation.
       Indeed, that is only part of the larger concept of government
       without the consent of the governed-

             It is not our power structure, but it is our University.

             Our restrictions are many already. The adoption of this
       document will give us little choice.

             M.y response to this document is a dictate of conscience.
       The moral responsibility of an Individual cannot be superseded
       by the laws of the state or the regulations of an institution.

             We cannot afford to wait and hope any longer. Eventually,
       we would have nothring left.

             We must resist.

             Gentlemen, we will resist."

       Dr. Sears and Dr. Rudd, speaking as faculty members, indicated their
support of the revised Code as presented and commended the committee for the
excellent job they had done-

       There being no further diE cusslon, Governor Nunn called for a vote on
Mr. Bell's motion.. All voting members present voted "aye". Dr. Rudd and Dr.
Sears indicated their concurrence and Mr, Br:ight indicated his dissent. (See
Student Code of Conduct at the end of the Minutes.

       H. Meeting Adjourned

       Determining that there weas no further busineis to come before the meeting,
Governor Nunn called for a motion for adjournment, The motion being made by Mr.
Pence, seconded by Mr. Griffin, and passed, the meeting adjourned at 2:40 p. m.

                                               Respectfully submitted,

                                               Lucile T.. Blazer, Secretary
                                               Board of Trustees

(PRs I and 2 and FCRs 1, 2 and 3 and the Code of Student Conduct which follow are
official parts of the Minutes of the meetmng. !



                                                      Office of the President
                                                      August 13, 1970

   Members, Board of Trustees:


   Recommendation: that Dr. William R. Willard. Vice President for the
   Medical Center, be named Special Assistant to the President for Health
   Affairs, effective October 1, 1970, and that Dr. Peter P. Bosomworth be
   named Vice President for the Medical Center. effective October 1, 1970.

   Background: It is essential for the continuing growth of the Medical Center
   that the University of Kentucky be represented at the state and national
   level by a person who is knowledgeable in health affairs and who has the
   respect and admiration of his colleagues. Dr. Willard is such a man and,
   by relieving him of the day-to-day chores of administration of the Medical
   Center, he will be able to devote his full time and energies to enhancing
   understanding and support of the Medical Center by the Commonwealth and
   its people, thus fostering Medical Center development and its contribution
   to the state and the nation.

   Immediately upon Dr. Willard's agreement to accept this new assignment
   as Special Assistant to the President for Health Affairs, a committee of the
   deans of the Medical Center was appointed to advise me on his replacement.
   It is with considerable pleasure th