xt7crj48sp5s https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7crj48sp5s/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1987-03-09  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 9, 1987 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 9, 1987 1987 1987-03-09 2020 true xt7crj48sp5s section xt7crj48sp5s LHWVERSHW OF KENTUCKY




Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, March
9, 1987, at 5:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building (CON/HSLC).

1. Minutes of February 9, 1987.
Report of Faculty Trustee —- Professor Constance P. Wilson.
Report on Presidential Search Committee.
Chairman's Announcements and Remarks.

a. Proposed Revisions in the Pharmacy Honor Code. (Circulated
under date of 27 February 1987.)

Proposal to revise the Admission and Retention Procedures for
Teacher Education Programs. (Circulated under date of 26
February 1987.)

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY -- Suggestion to add two "free" days to the
academic calendar for students to use as study days in preparation
for final examinations. (To be circulated)

Randall Dahl




The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:05 p.m., Monday, March
9, 1987, in Room 115 of the Co11ege of Nursing/Hea1th Sciences Budeing.

Ni1bur N. Frye, Chairman of the Senate CounciT, presided.

Members absent were: Curtis w. Absher, David M. A11en, Sandra A11en,
Robert A. A1tenkirch*, Richard AngeTo, Patrick AppeTman, Michae1 A. Baer,
Char1es E. Barnhart, Raymond F. Betts, Frank J. Bicke1, Tex Lee Boggs, Ronn
Borgmeier, Char1ie Boyd, Jeffery A. Born, Peter P. Bosomworth, Ray M. Bowen,
Danie1 J. 3reazea1e*, Stan1ey D. Brunn, Joe Burch, D. A11an Butterfier,
Char1es N. Byers*, Michae1 Cibu11, Harry C1arke*, Richard R. CTayton, Lisa
Corum, Emmett Costich*, M. Ward Crowe*, Frederick Danner, Richard Domek*,
Robert Lewis Donohew, Pau1 Eakin, Anthony Eard1ey, DonaTd G. E1y*, Stan1ey
Ferman, Gera1d Ferretti*, CaroTyn Fore*, James Freeman*, MichaeT Freeman,
Richard w. Furst, Art Ga11aher, Jr.*, Thomas C. Gray*, Andrew Grimes, John R.
Groves, MariTyn D. Hamann*, Zafar Hasan*, Rona1d C. Hoover, Raymond R.
Hornback, James G. HougTand, Jr., Jennifer Jacquet, John J. Just*, James D.
Kemp*, Joseph Kris1ov, Robert G. Lawson, Bruce A. Lucas, Edgar D. Maddox, Pau1
Mande1stam*, Sa11y Matting1y*, Patrick J. McNamara, Robert Murphy, Robert C.
Nob1e*, Arthur J. Nonneman, Phi1ip C. Pangreen, A1an Perreiah*, David J.
Prior, Peter Purdue, Thomas C. Robinson, Thomas L. Roszman, Wimber1y C.
Royster, Edgar L. Sagan, Timothy Sineath*, Otis A. SingTetary*, Karen Skaff*,
Robert H. Spedding, CaroT B. Ste11ing*, Michae1 G. Tearney*, Sheree Thompson,
Thomas L. Travis, Marc J. Na11ace, CharTes T. Nethington, Caro1yn Wi11iams*,
Pau1 A. Wi11is, David Ni1son*, Judy Wiza*, and Constance L. Wood.

Approva1 of the Minutes of February 9, 1987, was postponed to a subsequent
Senate meeting.

Chairman Frye recognized Professor L. L. Boyarsky, Department of
PhysioTogy and Biophysics, who read the fo11owing MemoriaT ResoTution on James
N. Archdeacon. 4

James w. Archdeacon

Dr. James N. Archdeacon was born in Car1is1e,
Kentucky, October 29, 1911, and died November 4, 1986, at
the Veterans HospitaT Hospice in Lexington. His death,
fo11owing a 1ong strugg1e with 1eukemia, marked the end of
a meritorious career of research and teaching, 32 years of
which were spent at this University.

Bi11 was reared in centra1 Kentucky, attending both
parochiaT and secu1ar institutions. A1though the country
was in a deep economic depression, he found the resources
to attend the University of Kentucky. Under the inf1uence
of Professor Richard S. A11en, Chairman of the Department
of Anatomy and Physio1ogy, he obtained a 8.8. in 1933 and
M.S. in 1940. He was principa11y interested in physio1ogy

*Absence exp1ained.


 so he went to the University of Rochester to work on his
Ph.D. in the Department of Vital Economics. At the time,
this oddly—named department was perhaps the leading
department of physiology in the United States with,
however, a strong orientation toward nutrition. The
Chairman was Wallace Fenn who pioneered in muscle
physiology. After obtaining the Ph.D. in l943, Bill
entered the Air Force as a second lieutenant. He was one
of those fortunate few who were actually well—employed by
the Armed Forces, since he was entrusted with the task of
instructing pilots in the proper use of their oxygen supply
on bailing out at high altitudes.

He returned to the University of Kentucky in l946 as
an assistant professor in the Department of Anatomy and
Physiology. Bill's teaching load was heavy. Nevertheless
he continued to do research and publish. He moved to the
newly-formed Department of Physiology and Biophysics in the
early sixties. The move to the Medical School meant that
he had much less teaching and more time to do research.

Bill was fundamentally interested in research in
physiology. His training at Rochester had been under John
R. Murlin, a man who had discovered the hormone glucagon
and had almost isolated insulin before Banting and Best.

At Kentucky Bill continued to do excellent research with
co-workers of high calibre such as Dr. William Markesbery,
presently head of the Sanders—Brown Center on Aging, who
published a paper with him in l96l. He supervised a number
of Ph.D.‘s who are now professors in respected departments
of physiology. His publications usually appeared in
prestigious journals such as Biochimica Bikophysica Acta,
the American Journal of Physiology, and Nature. Because of
this h’gh quality he 33ver had difficulty in obtaining
resea :h money or graduate students. Some of his success
was certainly the result of his ease and skill at writing
papers-—a task which he actually enjoyed.



So far as I know, Bill was the first to show carefully
that bulk fiber in diet inhibited appetite. While these
early studies in l948 were in nutrition, his later efforts
were in more fundamental aspects of physiology. He had
learned some of the modern tracer methods from a short stay
at Oak Ridge in l95l. He became interested in the uptake
of iron in l964 and pursued these studies until his
retirement in l977.

Although in appearance diffident and retiring, Bill
was in fact an adventurous character. Following the death
of his mother Carrie ”Dee” Archdeacon, with whom Bill had
lived throughout his life, he began a period of travel as a
visiting professor to exotic places. In l964 he was a
Fulbright—Hayes Lecturer in Physiology at the University of
Malaya to which he returned ten years later. These may
have been the happiest two periods in his life, since he


 was deeply attached to the oriental style as manifest in
Kuala Lumpur. Unfortunately, his next visiting professor-
ship was at the Medical School at the University of
Benghazi in Libya. This was the result of a promise to the
Chairman of that department which he felt honor—bound to
fulfill. He was very uncomfortable with the mores and
restrictions in Libya. He felt happier in Rhodesia, where
he taught in l977. There, however, he contracted a fever
of unknown origin whose cause was never satisfactorily
determined and which plagued him unremittingly.

Bill was filled with a joie de vivre which his
colleagues appreciated and encouraged. When asked to talk
at the retirement dinners of Professors Allen and Pratt, he
regaled us with his extremely witty observations. He
himself had three such celebrations upon each of his three
ostensible retirements. In fact, Bill never really
retired. He was a regular visitor to the department almost
to the end. Bill liked to eat well and to smoke good
cigars. He enjoyed playing the stock market which he was
able to do after he received a legacy. He would buy extra
cars or television sets to raise his spirits. This was a
residue of his habit of buying a new hat to alleviate
depression in his penurious youth. One of his deepest
attachments was to his dog Susie, whose death greatly
distressed him. Fortunately, in his last days he was well
cared-for, and his death was painless. We shall miss him
as a colleague and friend.

(Prepared by Professor Louis Boyarsky, Department of Physiology and Biophysics)
The Senate stood for a moment of silent tribute.

The Chair recognized Professor Bradley Canon for a Resolution. Professor
Canon said it was a Resolution of gratitude and appreciation for Dr. Otis A.


WHEREAS, Dr. Otis A. Singletary has served as President of the
University of Kentucky for eighteen eventful years, which
have produced many challenges and opportunities for the
University, and

NHEREAS Dr. Singletary has given thoughtful effort and long hours
to meeting these challenges and using these opportunities
to improve the University, and

WHEREAS his efforts have produced a dramatic increase in private
gifts to the University, and have led to the construction
of many new teaching, research, residential, cultural and
athletic facilities on the campus, and


 WHEREAS his efforts have helped the University to better educate
its students, increase the quality and quantity of
research, expand its service to the people of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, and have enhanced the
remuneration, benefits and working conditions of the
faculty and staff, and

WHEREAS Dr. Singletary has respected and protected the faculty's
academic rights and policy-making prerogatives,

WOW, therefore, be it resolved by the University of Kentucky
Senate that this body extends to Dr. Otis A. Singletary its
deep appreciation and gratitude for his leadership as
President of the University during the years l969-l987, and
that this body wishes him well in his new role at the

Professor Canon moved adoption of the Resolution. Motion was seconded and
approved unanimously.

The Chair reminded the Senate that Dr. Singletary would be at the April l3
meeting to receive the Resolution that was passed in the form of a plaque.

The Chair recognized William Lyons for a Resolution which follows:

The University Senate expresses its deep appreciation to
its representatives on the Presidential Search Committee: Mary
Sue Coleman, Wilbur Frye, Robert Guthrie, and Donna Greenwell.

At the time when each was carrying heavy responsibilities
in the University, they devoted endless hours to the work of the
committee. Working closely with the trustee members, they
adopted an excellent set of criteria, actively searched for the
best possible candidates, and carefully selected a number of
individuals to be interviewed in depth.

After the names of the candidates became public, our
representatives worked skillfully and responsibly to answer
faculty questions and provided information about them. They
listened to faculty views and opinions concerning the candidates
and supported efforts by the faculty to have input into the
selection process. As the time approached for the Search
Committee to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees,
they joined in giving very positive support to Dr. David Roselle
as the next President of this Institution.

The presidential selection worked well under difficult
conditions, and the Senate commends all of those who made it
work: its representatives on the Search Committee; members on
the board, Connie Wilson and Ray Betts, and the many faculty
members who provided information and vigorous support for the
Search Committee and its candidate.

Professor Lyons moved that the Resolution be placed on record. The motion
was seconded and approved unanimously.


 Chairman Frye introduced his two colleagues who worked diligently with him
during the past eight or nine months on the Search Committee. They were Mary
Sue Coleman in Biochemistry and Robert Guthrie from the Department of
Chemistry who were given a hand of applause.

The Chair recognized Professor Constance Wilson for a Faculty Trustee

Professor Wilson's report follows:

"Last Friday a phone call reminded me again that
Kentucky is a special place - it has faculty who sit on the
Board of Trustees with full voting privileges. The call
came from some University of Maryland faculty who are
preparing to approach their legislators for the right to
participate in policy decisions at the highest level of
governance — the Trustee level. This call was one of
several I've received through the years from colleges and
universities in other states who are sometimes in awe that
we have had this right for better than 30 years. It is so
much part of our tradition of governance that not much
thought is given to its importance — or fragility. I
delight in hearing Paul Oberst's stories about the
resistance of President Donovan to this idea — of how he

. bargained — if faculty would forget the trustee idea, he
would agree that the next Presidential Search Committee
would be made up of four faculty members plus four board
members. Eventually we got both - faculty representation
on the Presidential Search Committee and voting faculty
representatives on the Board of Trustees. President Oswald
was known to remark that though he viewed this structure
with trepidation when he first arrived on campus, fie Tater
found that the faculty trustees were instrumental in
helping him interpret what a university is about 1nd in
influencing certain decisions. These continue to he the
major roles of the Faculty Trustees on the Board.

Why, then, in l987, is the University setting still
such an engima to most of the powerful businessmen and
professionals who occupy trustee seats? Perhaps it's
because the University, an institution of higher learning,
is a different kind of place. Concepts like collegiality,
peer review, governance from the bottom up, the thrill of
discovery in either the laboratory or in quiet
concentration - are in sharp contrast to what most trustees
experience in their world of work. The hierarchical
structure of most corporations, the leadership and
authority that comes from the top down, the goals of
efficiency and profit would on face seem to pose an
insurmountable gulf to mutual understanding.

t is why the term ”employee” is defined very
differently by some persons on the Board and by the
faculty. And it is why a Faculty Trustee is continually


 asked ”How many hours do faculty actually work? Why should
a Faculty Trustee have a vote (as opposed to being present
just for informational purposes) on promotions or

salaries? lEmployees don't do that?i' — There are the
horror stories, such as: a faculty member at a cocktail
party who declared he had not been to his office in 2 years
- or "My wife says it must be a great life — 'He's always
home by noon working in his garden'” or the continual
question - asked directly or indirectly of how faculty
account for their time - Do they clock in? For most Board
members the Wall Street Journal speaks much more eloquently
than the Chronic e. Here are some excerpts from a January
27 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled "How
Colleges Can Cut Costs' that I fee probably is much in
tune with how we are viewed. I have excerpted certain
passages but I hope you will read the full article.

'College administrators and faculty answer critics
with a list of standard responses. But these myths,
however popular in the hall of ivy, don't adequately
explain the high costs.

Myth No. l: The high cost of college is due to
expenSive Efiuipment, buildings, computers and other items
peripheral to education. Wrong. The single biggest reason
for the high cost of college, public institutions as well
as private ones, is staff. The average college spends more
than 80% of its budget on salaries and fringe benefits.

Myth W9. g: The average professor is overpaid.
Wrong. lhe average professor is under—worked. There are
more than 450,000 full-time professors teaching in this
country's 3,300 colleges, earning an average salary of
31,000 for nine months of work plus numerous breaks. How
many breaks? Ask those parents who paid a huge tuition
bill and sent their kids off to college only to find them
back home again for a fall break, a Thanksgiving break, a
long winter break, and a spring break ... well, you get the

A few decades ago professors taught l5 credits a
semester (about one—half the teaching load of a high school
teacher today) and were expected to engage in research.
Today, some teach l2 credits, but nine credits is the norm
at many colleges...

. Teaching is what many professors do best, and they
ought to do more of it, not less. Professors ought to be
in the classroom for no less than l2 hours a week. With
the 30-week academic year, that should leave ample time for

Myth No 3: ... Colleges, especially public ones whose
costs are sfibsTdized by high taxes, excel in building
bureaucracies. The president ”needs” vice presidents who


 "need" deans who "need" fleets of associate and assistant
deans, most of whom cannot give answers without checking
with their superiors. The top-heavy bureaucracy we lament
in business and government is alive and flourishing in
higher education.l

And much more ...

The Faculty Trustee is in a major position to bridge
this gulf and increase appreciation and understanding of
the faculty role and traditions. Remember that persons
appointed to the Board of Trustees have, on the whole, a
very great commitment to the greater good of the
University. They give a great deal of time to University
business and in many cases a great deal of money. Most
truly want to understand what seems to be incomprehen—
sible. Faculty must responsibly perform this role.

All faculty, however, must be ever vigilant and
understand that their actions, positive or negative, can
profoundly influence the public view of faculty work and
put rights and privileges, already fragile in jeopardy.

Assaults on these rights and privileges come
unexpectedly more often than not. Some that I consider
most serious are:

l. The introduction last fall in the Kentucky
Legislature, a bill to strip all faculty trustees
of voting rights.

Liability Insurance Crisis: Because of this, the
work of faculty in tenure decisions, doctoral com-
mittees, privilege and tenure committee and other

committees have seriously been compromised.

The Present Presidential Search: A trustee was
quoted by the newspapers as saying that faculty
opinion was not of much concern since it was so
narrow. Some unhappy trustees are declaring that
the search process needs to be examined.

These are only a few of a number of assaults that are
raised periodically. However, I have reason to believe we
shall overcome — our tradition of faculty activism has
proven to be not only alive and well but also quite
effective. Faculty voices were loud and clear these last
few weeks.

I want to conclude by commenting on the Faculty
Trustee role inside the institution. Faculty Trustees are
ex-officio members of the Senate Council and therefore can
not only convey to the Trustees the sense of the requests
brought before them but can also bring back to the senate
the Trustee View. As a Trustee one is suddenly thrust into


 many different roles from an information, referral person
to facilitator, mediator, advocate, interpreter, etc., etc.
Sometimes it is as though the perception is that conferring
of title ”Trustee" means the presenting of a magic wand
with which you should be able to accomplish anything.
Suddenly, the phone rings — early morning to late evening -
your office is a drop in for all - from the youngest
secretary somewhere in the Medical Center to faculty and
administrators all over the state. You are called upon to
"Act”. Hours and hours are spent on the mundane tasks that
aFE~Unsung and unheard ranging from l0 minutes to hours.

It is hard work! Ray Betts and I have spent countless
hours during this presidential search conferring, making
calls, planning strategy, compiling infonnation and data.
The emotional investment and time spent can never be
recorded because it isn't in the job description.

The reward was the tremendous support of this faculty
and the outpouring of concern for our work as Faculty
Trustees. Ray and I truly appreciated this since it made a
difficult task somewhat less arduous.

I have been proud to represent this faculty as a
Trustee. I thank you for this honor. I have tried to
represent you and your concerns and views in a
conscientious way.

I hope that I succeeded.”

Professor Wilson was given a round of applause and Chairman Frye thanked
her. She agreed to answer any questions that anyone might have. Professor
Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) asked Professor Wilson if she sensed, over
the period of time she had been on the Board of Trustees, that there has been
some growth in the willingness of the non-faculty trustees to come to her for
information. Professor Nilson felt this was true and said that in the
Presidential Search Committee the faculty trustees would have been cut out
from all information if they had not had contact from the Board. She added it
was worthwhile to have that trust. Professor James Applegate (Communications)
wanted to know if she would comment on the faculty-trustee role in the search
process in regards to the decision making. She said that by the time the
decision had gotten ”behind closed doors” the votes were there. However, it
was not unanimous and she felt that had been Robert McCowan's goal. She said
it was interesting in the kinds of ways people try to manipulate other people.

The Chairman thanked Professor Wilson and said the report was appreciated.
There was no report from the Presidential Search Committee.
The Chairman made the following announcements and remarks:

”Tomorrow morning at 7:30 a.m. the Senate Council
having breakfast with nine local legislators.

At the request of the Senate Council I wrote a
of congratulations to Dr. Roselle on behalf of the S

and the Senate Council.


 A reminder that Aprii T6 is the day that has been
seTected to pay tribute to Dr. SingTetary. Invitations
wiTT be sent soon. You wiiT be getting those in the campus
maiT. The time is 3:30 p.m. ApriT T6 at the Center for the
Arts. There wiii be a reception foiiowing in the FacuTty

As you know, Connie is the retiring facuity Board of
Trustee member. There is an eTection underway right now to
eTect her successor. The two finaiists in that eiection
are Mary Sue CoTeman and Marcus McETTistrem. (The Chairman
asked the two to stand to be recognized.) Professor Mary
Sue Coieman is in Biochemistry and is Associate Director of
the Markey Cancer Center. Professor Marcus McETiistrem is
in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. You wiT) be
receiving the baiiot soon to vote for your choice of those
candidates. If you have any questions regarding the Board
of Trustees or their position, you might see them after the
meeting today or caTT them at their office. I am sure they
woqu be happy to discuss any issues with you that you
might have in mind.”

The Chair recognized Professor Niiiiam Lyons, Chair-eiect of the Senate
Councii. Professor Lyons, on behan of the Senate Counci), moved adoption of
the ProposaT to Revise the Honor Code for the CoTTege of Pharmacy. The
proposai was circuiated to members of the Senate on February 27, 1987.

Motion was moved and seconded to waive the ten-day circuiation ruTe. The
motion carried unanimousiy.

The Chair recognized Professor Loys Mather (Agricuiture Economics), who is
Chairman of the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee, for a report on
the agenda item. Professor Mather said that the committee reviewed the
proposaT and acted in favor of its recommendation. He thought the CoTTege of
Pharmacy was the oniy coTiege in the University who had an honor code. He
said the changes were getting the honor code in Tine with the new standards
which the University has.

The Chair said the proposa) needed no second since it came from the Senate
Counci). The fioor was opened for discussion.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) had an editoria) correction. He did
not Tike the ”he/she” notation and suggested strongTy that ”or” be substituted
for the siash. There was no objection.

The motion carried unanimousiy and reads as foiTows:

Background and Rationaie:

The attached revisions (new portion underiined; deiete
bracketed portions) in the Phannacy Honor Code were prompted by
the recommendations of the Ombudsman's Committee on Cheating
and Piagiarism and resuiting changes in the University Senate
Ruies approved by the University Senate March 0, 986. ine
proposed revisions accompiish four things:



 They bring the penalties and reporting system for cheating and
plagiarism in line with the current Senate Rules.

They directly indicate a faculty responsibility for helping to
maintain academic integrity and give the faculty the option of
following the University Senate procedures should a breach in
that integrity occur.

They give the students a mechanism for pursuing cheating and
plagiarism problems, something that is missing in the Senate

They maintain the principle that students share in the
responsibility of enforcing appropriate academic behavior.

The proposed revisions were discussed with the Student Advisory
Committee of the College of Pharmacy in the fall, l986, and
approved by the College faculty and administration, the
Academic Council for the Medical Center, the Senate‘s Committee
on Admissions and Academic Standards and the University Senate

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l987

[Copy of the College of Pharmacy Academic Honor Code is attached at the end of
these minutes.]

The Chair again recognized Professor William Lyons for the presentation
of action item b. Professor Lyons, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved
adoption of the Proposal to revise the admission procedures in the College of
Education Teacher Education Program, Section IV, 2.2.3 University Senate
Rules; and proposal to add retention procedures in the College of Education
Ieacher Education Program. This proposal was circulated to members of the
Senate under date of February 26, l987.

Motion was moved and seconded to waive the ten-day circulation rule.
The motion carried unanimously. [The Chainnan apologized for asking for the
waiver of the rule.]

The Chair said the motion did not need a second since it came from the
Senate Council. The floor was opened for discussion.

Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) had a question concerning
the last paragraph on the first page which stated, ”A demonstrated skill level
equal to or greater than the minimum, acceptable level mandated by the State
Department of Education.” He wanted to know if it was mandated for applicants
to the program, for teachers to be certified, and what the regulations were.
Professor Mather said that was not part of the proposal. He said that was
already in the Rules. He said what was being proposed was to change the
minimum grade requirement for admission to the program. The other part of the
proposal was to add a retention policy. .

The motion carried unanimously and reads as follows:

PrOposal: [delete bracketed portion; add underlined portion]


 2.2.3 College of Education
A student must apply and be admitted to a Teacher
Education Program in order to receive a teaching
certificate. Applications are accepted for review by
the Program Faculty from students who have completed,
or will complete during the semester in which they
apply, sixty semester hours of work, which must
include EDP 202 completed with a grade of C or
better. Program Faculties shall review applications
and interviews, which shall be required of all
students admitted, and recommend to the Dean of the
College that an applicant be accepted, accepted
provisionally, or rejected. A student's education
advisor, academic advisor, and the Admission
Coordinator also may make recommendations concerning
the disposition of an application. Information
considered during the review process shall include but
not be limited to an applicant's:

l. Total academic record. A minimum, overall grade
point average [2.0] 3;§ is required for admission.

. Performance on required tests of skills in written
and oral communication, reading, and mathematics.
A demonstrated skill level equal to or greater than
the minimum, acceptable level mandated by the State
Department of Education is required for admission.

. Record of preprofessional curricula experiences.

. Commitment to the profession based on a realistic
understanding of employment conditions and demands.

. Proficiency in human relation skills.

. Recommendations from at least three persons
familiar with the student‘s qualifications.

. Willingness to help provide an adequate education
for children and youth. (US: l2/5/83)‘


Proposed Retention Policy:


The teacher candidate‘s progress in a Teacher Education Program
will be continuously monitored. The following conditions will
result in the student being placed on probationary status in the
Teacher Education Program:

l. The student fails to earn a grade of C or better in a
professional education class.

The student fails to maintain a GPA of 2.50.


 The student fails to demonstrate the ability to work
successfully with youngsters in a classroom setting during
field experiences or student teaching.

In conditions l and 2, a student will be placed on probationary
status for one semester. If the student fails to meet the
specified criteria within one semester after being placed on
probationary status, he or she will be suspended from the

program. If concerns are raised under conditions 3, the case will
be referred to the appropriate Program Faculty and the student may
be suspended upon the recommendation of the Program Faculty. If
the Program Faculty deems it necessary to suspend the student from
the Teacher Education Program, the student may request a hearing
before the Program Faculty. If the student wishes to appeal the
decision of the Program Faculty, he or she may request a hearing
before the College of Education Undergraduate Admissions and
Retention Committee.


The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
has recently adopted a requirement that students must have a
minimum GPA of 2.50 before they can be admitted into a Teacher
Education Program.

Upon approval of this revised admission requirement, the Teacher
Education Program will initiate a one-year grace period during
which an applicant whose GPA falls between 2.00 and 2.50 will be
considered for admission on an individual basis.

The College of Education is scheduled for an accreditation visit
in l988—89; thus it is requested that the minimum GPA of 2.50 be
instituted as a requirement for students admitted into Teacher
Education Programs as of Fall, l987.

NOTE: This proposal will be codified by the Rules Committee.

The last item on the agenda was for ”discussion only” which pertained to
the suggestion to add two free days to the academic calendar for students to
use as study days in preparation for final exams. The Chairman said that
Student Senator Cyndi Weaver (Arts and Sciences) had prepared a letter
explaining the proposal made on behalf of the Student Caucus of the University

The floor was opened for discussion. The Chair recognized Student Senator
weaver who thanked the Senate for the opportunity to address the proposal as a
discussion item before it was brought as an action item. She said that the
Student Government had considered the proposal and passed a resolution urging
the Senate to consider it favorably. She pointed out that the proposal was
not to impose upon the faculty. She said no more time was being asked of the
faculty except that school would begin two days earlier. She added that it
was not to