xt7dnc5sbn0d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7dnc5sbn0d/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1975-03-10  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 10, 1975 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 10, 1975 1975 1975-03-10 2020 true xt7dnc5sbn0d section xt7dnc5sbn0d m



The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March
10, 1975, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Krislov presided.
Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Gerald Ashdown*, Ruth Assell*, Lisa K.
Barclay*, Harry Barnard*, Charles E. Barnhart, Robert P. Belin, Robert S. Benton*,
Norman F. Billups*, Joan Blythe*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Herbert Bruce*, Joseph
A. Bryant*, James D. Buckholtz*, H. Stuart Burness, Michael Clawson, Lewis
W. Cochran, Henry Cole, Anthony Colson*, Bruce Combest*, Ronda S. Connaway*,
Foy Cox, Alfred L. Crabb*, Vincent Davis*, Patrick P. DeLuca, Ronald Dillehay*,
Bette Dollase*, Hebert Drennon, Anthony Eardley, Roger Eichhorn*, Robert 0.
Evans*, Doane Fischer, Lawrence E. Forgy*, James E. Funk*, R. Fletcher Gabbard,
Art Gallaher*, Claudine Gartner*, James Gibson*, Elaine Grubbs, Joseph Hamburg, .
J. Merrell Hansen*, George W. Hardy*, Virgil W. Hays*, Charles F. Haywood*, 43' “
Dallas M. High*, Raymond R. Hornback, Eugene Huff, Charles Hughes, Hope Hughes,
Charles W. Hultman*, Donald lvey, Roy K. Jarecky, Dean Jaros, Raymon D. Johnson*,
Gregory Kendrick*, William F. Kenke1*, James B. Kincheloe*, Don Kirkenda11*, L.
A. Virginia Lane*, David L. Larimore, Albert S. Levy, Rey M. Longyear, Charles
Ludwig, William Lyons*, Donald Madden*, Paul Mandelstamf Joseph Mattingly,
Levis D. McCullers*, Susan A. McEvoy*, William C. Miles, Joe Moore, David Mucci,
Robert C. Noble*, Thomas M. Olshewsky*, Blaine F. Parker, Harold F. Parks*,
David Peck, Arthur Peter*, Jeanne Rachford*, Barbara Reed*, Donald A. Ringe,
Robert W. Rudd*, William Sartoris, Kenneth Schiano, Robert Sedler*, D. Milton
Shuffett*, Pam Sievers, Sheldon W. Simon*, Otis A. Singletary*, Brad Smith,
Don Sou1e*, M. Lynn Sprui11*, Earl L. Stee1e*, John B. Stephenson, Louis J.
Swift*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, William C. Templeton*, Harold H. Traurig, S.
Sidney U1mer*, John N. Walker*, M. Stanley Wall, Rebecca Westerfield, Paul A.
Willis, Miroslava B. Winer*, Judith Wore11*, Randy Wynkoop, Roy Yarbrough*,
Fred Zechman. ‘ ,f


The minutes of the regular meeting of February 10, 1975 were accepted as

On behalf of the College of Agriculture, Dr. Stephen Diachun read Resolutions
on the death of Dr. W. D. Valleau, and directed that the Resolution be made
a part of the minutes and that copies be sent to his family.



Dr. W. D. Valleau, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Plant
Pathology, died at his home in Lexington on December 14, 1974 at age
83. Dr. Valleau, a native of Minnesota, received the Ph.D. degree from
the University of Minnesota in 1917. He devoted his entire professional
life to research, teaching, and public service in the College of Agriculture
of the University of Kentucky from 1919 until he retired in 1961, and
as Emeritus Professor, while his health permitted, for several years
after his official retirement.


Dr. Valleau's pioneering studies on identification and classification
of tobacco viruses, in the early days of viral studies, and on trans—
mission, overwintering, and control of bacterial diseases, brought him
international recognition among his professional colleagues. He was H _
elected President of the American Phytopathological Society and was y'wf‘”f"
selected to be a Fellow of the Society. : /'


Dr. Valleau was recognized widely for his significant role in main~
taining the burley tobacco industry in a vigorous condition. His skill ]'
in breeding tobacco varieties resistant to several diseases was outstanding.

*Absence explained








.I_ ~ .-_.~. I‘x-AAWIVJHJJPIQ “arms-v... 1’55?” 4‘13““? .
Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 - cont

His tobacco varieties were phenomenally successful. At one time the
varieties he developed, especially Ky 16 and Ky 41A, were growing in
most tobacco fields in Kentucky. Dr. Valleau long ago even saw potential
in low—nicotine tobacco and bred varieties of low-nicotine burley that
actually were used in production and marketing of a low—nicotine

Kentucky farmers respected and admired Dr. Valleau for his
scientific talents for solving practical problems, for his skill in
communication with them, for his fierce insistence on adherence to
facts, and for his noble determination to help tobacco farmers. As
a token of their devotion, Central Kentucky Tobacco Growers singled
him out for a citation and gave him a Cadillac. He was named Man of
the Year in Kentucky Agriculture.

Dr. Valleau was active in University affairs. He served on innumer-
able committees and commissions and as President of the Research Club
and of Sigma Xi Scientific Society. He was respected for his incisive
analysis of complex problems, for his uncanny thrusts to the center
of issues, and for his crisp rebuttals of occasional faulty logic
of occasionally verbose faculty colleagues.

Dr. Valleau was named Distinguished Professor and was awarded an
Honorary Degree by the grateful university he served so long and so
very well.

Dr. Valleau is missed sorely by those who knew him, admired him,
and loved him.

Following the reading of the Resolution the Chairman asked the Senators to
stand for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Dr. Valleau and in
acceptance of the Resolution.

Chairman Krislov reported on the following information items:

The first is a report on the status of the Senate Committees. When
the Senate reorganized about two years ago it appointed l3 committees.
I suspect the number was fatal because very quickly one of the committees
asked to disband. In retrospect, probably we should not have created
that committee — the Community College Committee. As I indicated at
the last Senate meeting, the Council has met with the Committee Chairmen.
We have recorded the discussion; we have analyzed it; and I think it
is appropriate to report on what is happening with these Committees.

Two of the 12 committees have not been able to identify specific
tasks and goals. One of these two committees has suggested that it
might disband. The Senate Council has addressed itself to that issue
and has made some positive suggestions to that committee of the tasks
that it might undertake. The Chairman will be meeting with that committee
and we are hopeful that it will be able to resume functioning.

The other committee which has not undertaken any specific task
seems to have had a rapid turnover in leadership. We are hopeful that
next year that committee will be able to undertake some specific


. r‘




Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont 3975

That leaves us with 10 committees that apparently are functioning.
Six, in a short period of time, have not only undertaken tasks but
have made recommendations or reports and have had some impact on Univer-
sity government. The four that have not reported are undertaking long-
range studies, and I think that a number of them will be reporting. SO
it seems that our committees are active and are working at the assignments.

There were three problems that the Committee Chairmen raised and
we have tried to solve one of them. More than half the Committees
reported that they had difficulty setting a time for a meeting. A
typical procedure was to send out a schedule sheet; they received some
of them back but there was no time at which everybody was available.
One of the Committee Chairmen, Professor Jones in the Spanish Department,
suggested that the Council set aside a specific hour and date, and that
all committees meet at that time. We have explored that suggestion and
the Council has adopted it. We have designated the first Monday of
every month at 3:00 p.m. as the regular meeting date for the Senate Committees.
This date will be the least disruptive since the University Senate meets
on the second Monday of each month at 3:00 p.m. Because there is no
regularly scheduled activity on the first Monday, there can be no disruption.
The other Mondays are reserved for the Colleges, and the Graduate Faculty.
We have instructed the Registrar to notify the Deans that when people
agree to stand for election to the Senate, they are expected to attend the
Senate meetings as well as have the Committee meetings. We are hopeful
that the adoption of this date and this procedure will solve the Committee
Chairmen's problem. There may be some difficulties but this appears to
be the most successful resolution of them.

The second problem that was mentioned was the size of the Committees.
Some of the Committee Chairmen said that they found it difficult to
conduct a Committee meeting of 20 or 30 people. This is ironic, in a
sense, because the Senate itself has always had problems with its size.
We don't know what the resolution of this issue will be. It is possible
that some members of the Senate not be assigned a committee but that does
not seem to be a very sensible way of solving the difficulty. In any
event, we have not made any recommendation at this point and we will
continue to look at that area.

I have already alluded to the third problem, and that is the
difficulty of defining tasks and goals. I suspect that a dialogue
between the Senate Council, the committees, and the Committee Chairmen
will be very helpful in this area. It certainly is not very desirable
to have committees that simply exist and do not investigate areas and
make recommendations. I think in the initial years it is obvious that
a good deal of learning has to take place as to the charge of the committee
and its responsibilities.

I proceed to the second item on the agenda. The Academic Programs
Committee, headed by Professor Forand, has sent to the Council, with
approval, three programs: the Bachelor's degree in Biology, the Ph.D. in
Communications, and the Ph.D. in Philosophy. Under the Senate Rules
the Council is now circulating those programs for your comments. Any
objection to those programs should be sent to the Senate Council office
in writing. If there are no objections, those programs will be sent to
the President's Office for his action.






Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont

‘il~ The third item is our Annual Faculty Recognition Dinner which, this i

f "ih’ . year, will be held on Monday, April 28th. We will have approximately

5 15 15 people retiring, although the number has a tendency to grow. So if L
you will mark that date on your calendar, we will give you further 0&Ih
notice about it. '

The last item, which is not on the agenda, is an action taken by the ‘
Council in response to a request from the Registrar's Office concerning
the circulation of the list of degree applicants. In a letter to the \
Senate Council the Registrar's Office pointed out that they print 375
copies of the list of degree applicants for May, August and December and,
under the present arrangements, they circulate these to every member of the Sawfly
V and they would like to change that procedure. They Would like to eliminate
:l j the mailing to each member of the University Senate and make several copies
‘- available in the Senate Council Office, the Deans' Office, the Registrar's
Office, and the Student Government Office. They will advertise in the
Kernel the changed procedure. They will announce in the faculty information
schedule the procedural changes, and they asked that the Chairman of the
Senate announce at the Senate meeting their procedural modifications. éfl‘
. a L They point out to us that these changes will result in a saving of ”r'
.33' q approximately $200 to $250. The Council felt that the circulation of '
‘ 9 these very hugh documents to all members of the Senate is not particularly
necessary and so agreed to the request of the Registrar's Office.


Chairman Krislov recognized Professor Thomas R. Ford for the purpose of
moving the next item on the agenda.

On behalf of the Senate Council Professor Ford moved the adoption of the
proposed addition to the Rules gf_the University Senate, Section IV—9,
2.4 Unclassified Graduate Student (circulated to the faculty under date of
February 26, 1975) to be effective with the 1975 Fall Semester.





The Chair recognized Professor William Peters, Chairman of the Committee
‘f’ I on Admissions and Academic Standards, for the purpose of explaining the
" ' proposal. Professor Peters' remarks follow:

‘Li " In November the Graduate Council recommended to the Graduate Faculty ém~
1 that an unclassified student category for admission to the Graduate

School be approved, and this recommendation was considered at the Graduate
7‘ ' Faculty meeting of November 25, 1974. After some discussion, the recommen-
‘ dation was amended to allow an unclassified student to apply 12 hours of
work taken in this category toward a degree program. On December 13th

the Senate Council asked the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee

to review this proposal of the Graduate Faculty and to make appropriate


Currently, post—baccalaureate students may enroll in graduate courses
with non-degree status, and they do this through the Registrar's Office.
By initiating this category of unclassified graduate students, we would
eliminate the non—degree category for graduate students and would permit
the Graduate School and Graduate Faculty involvement in the study
of these students. 1“

The Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards believes that ‘
such a change is appropriate and therefore recommends that this request
be approved with appropriate Rules changes.

 ‘ n——-~nvu:n.v-~:¢uwr-‘-"”77"""'""""f"‘-¢.~u _ , , _,., .. .,-. ._ ”My. .u . W...


Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont 3977

f Following limited discussion the Senate approved the proposed change in
the Rules g£_the University Senate, Section IV—9, 2.4 Graduate School, to

1 add an additional paragraph to read as follows and to be effective with the

gm 1975 Fall Semester.


2.41 Unclassified Graduate Student ,
1 Students who hold a baccalaureate degree and who wish to
pursue graduate study without a degree objective and
students who do not fulfill the entrance requirements of the
Graduate School may apply for admission as an unclassified
graduate student.


Senate' . . .
’ AdmiSSion to this status may be granted to an applicant who

(1) demonstrates promise but has not qualified for admission
to a degree program, or (2) intends not to complete a
degree program. Students may take courses for graduate credit
but may not apply more than twelve (12) hours of credit with 54
a grade of A or B earned in the unclassified status to any E2
é degree program leading to an advanced degree at this institution. 5”
gfifi‘ All transfers of credit hours to a graduate program must be
y approved by that program Director of Graduate Studies and
the Graduate Dean.

Applications for admission to the Graduate School as an un—
classified graduate student should be on file in the Admissions
Office at least 30 days in advance of the registration date

for the term in which the student plans to enroll.

Chairman Krislov announced that item 5. on the agenda, action on the
I proposed change in the Rules, Section IV—2, 2.12 Admission tg_Advanced
Standing, and Section V—4, 2.11, Credit for Work Done a£_University 9f_Kentuchy
Community Colleges, had been removed from the agenda because of an error
and that rather than present amendments, the Council thought it best to remove
it from the agenda, rewrite it, and present it to the April, 1975 meeting
of the Senate.


éfl~ Chairman Krislov recognized Dr. Ford who moved that Section V—5, 2.13,

3’ Credit by Special Examination, paragraph (2) d., Rules 9f_the University Senate,
which had been circulated to the faculty under date of February 24, 1975, be

1 changed to read.


d. The student shall have the option of accepting or rejecting
the grade received on a special examination. If the grade is ‘ ,
accepted by the student, the examiner shall inform the Registrar ;5
of the student's grade in the course. A student currently enrolled ‘ F“
in the class who successfully completes a special examination

shall be formally removed from the official roll, unless the student
is dissatified with the results, in which case he may continue in
the course and be graded in the usual manner.



The Chair recognized Professor Peters, Chairman of the Committee on i fig
é“! Admissions and Academic Standards, for the purpose of speaking to the proposal. 7 : r“
(K . ,'
m‘w v .

whether or not the examination grade, which a student obtained by special
examination, must be reported to the Registrar or whether such reporting
was optional. This issue was referred to the Admiss10ns and Academic

Standards Committee.

J A question had been raised with the Senate Council in regard to








~ - _« . 'y'thvu..1.‘.".?.\t\z_—; guzmmgflugmffl . F .I_ t 1“,“ . i \

3978 Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont

As we investigated this particular issue in consultation with
the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and with the student
records office, the concept of the special examination was considered
at some length and the Dean of Undergraduate Studies provided us with
a rather lengthy history of the special examination concept. It
appeared rather obvious that the special examination concept was for the
benefit of the student to allow him perhaps to progress more rapidly
through his course of study at the University.

In addition, the Registrar's Office provided us with some data
that we felt was rather impressive in terms of the student taking the
option of the special examination, and this data was included in the
circulation to the faculty dated Feburary 24th. We felt, therefore,
that the appropriate change, which would address itself to the initial
question that was raised with the Senate Council, would be to make it
clear that the student would have the option of accepting or rejecting
the grade that he received on a special examination and therefore, we
recommended the Rules change that you have before you.

Following extensive discussion in which a number of questions were
raised and a number of positions were stated against this proposal, motion was
made to close debate. By a hand count of 59 to 26, the required two—thirds
majority, the Senate voted to stop debate on the motion on the floor. The
Senate then defeated the proposal to change Section V—5, 2.13, Credit by
Special Examination, paragraph (2) d.

Chairman Krislov recognized Dr. Ford for the purpose of presenting a
recommendation from the Senate to the President (circulated to the faculty
under date of February 21, 1975).

Dr. Ford raised the question of whether this was a recommendation of the
Senate Council or simply a transmission of a recommendation from the Student
Affairs Committee which involves a recommendation from the Senate to the
President that grades of students not be made available to residence hall
staff members. He stated that, in any event, he would, for the purposes
of conveyance, move that the Senate recommend to the President that ”Grades
of students shall not be made available to residence hall staff members."

Chairman Krislov responded that the recommendation was before the Senate
on behalf of the Student Affairs Committee and the Senate Council. He then
recognized Dr. Betty Rudnick, Chairman of the Student Affairs Committee, who
made the following remarks:

The Senate Advisory Committee on Student Affairs recommends that
staff members in Residence Halls shall not be given student grades.

The Committee collected information and interviewed persons in
regard to this question, and wrestled with the problem over a period
of months. At the conclusion of that time, the Committee could not
find substantiation for the practice of allowing resident counselors
nor corridor advisers to know the grades of any student. Any student
who wishes to share information about his or her grades with anyone
is obviously free to do so. Resident counselors and corridor advisers
could offer whatever support and encouragement they might deem proper,
without knowing the students' grades. Tutorial programs, study skills





Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont

[ programs, psychological and physical counseling and inspirational

\ and educational programs may be publicized and made available to

' students, without specific grade information being made available. It
‘Wfih is the opinion of the Committee with two of 17 members disagreeing,
'«“' that the violation of privacy of the student represented by distribution
of the grades, outweighs any reason as yet submitted for such distribution.

I Dr. Rudnick stated that the following remarks were her own.

Students may be battered with diatribes and encouragement and
assistance, at home, in the classroom, and informal academic advisement , +r
situations. A student who is so assailed, and who does not elect to ' "“
take advantage of the wide array of assistance available, surely should

‘ have surcease from the assault for the few hours she or he is away
, from class, and surely should have the privilege of failing, if the desire
to seek help gr the scholastic ability does not exist.

Chairman Krislov recognized Dr. Robert G. Zumwinkle, Vice President for
49%“ Student Affairs, who spoke as follows:

‘ The practice of making student grade reports available to residence
hall staff dates back a good number of years, at least as far back as
the late 1950's. Although a general complaint has been voiced, I ‘3‘

‘ am aware of no reported evidence of an individual student's complaining in

directly to a corridor advisor, head resident, or the Dean of Students '

‘ about residence hall staff misuse of information from that student's
academic record.

The use of such information by residence hall staff has been for
V the general purpose of aiding the University's academic programs by
encouraging and reconizing academic achievement. This is consistent
with the View that residence halls should be more than places to sleep ; '3‘
and eat and should be supportive of the University's academic mission. ‘ ‘yfl
As reflected in their current job descriptions, the residence hall staff -31
are expected to support the University's education program by assisting
, students in their educational development and encouraging an environment
r}, conducive to effective study.


More specifically the residence hall staff have used the list of
grade point averages in the following ways: (1) In the case of students
with low grade point averages, the corridor adviser has conferred with
the student, inquired as to any problems that may have contributed
' to the low grades, and expressed readiness to help as needed. It is ? ft

estimated that in almost all such cases of low achievement there has :
i been some follow—up with the student by the corridor advisor or head H ;'
[ resident. (2) Steps have been taken to recognize those students who '
} had superior records. To extend such recognition, in most halls a

scholarship party or banquet has been held, at which certificates for
' scholastic achievement have been awarded; and in a few halls a list
, of students whose grade point averages were 3.5 or better have been
‘ posted. (3) Hall and unit overall averages have been computed and published.


m A year ago, when the matter was first considered by the Senate
l Council, it became apparent that one problem was our lack of a written
l policy. My office undertook that task, prepared three or four drafts
I over the next several months, and sought criticisms of each draft from

a number of persons, including representatives of the Senate Council and 0f

 1..., ._.4=_.:«-.mm7.’:‘f“‘“t


Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont

; .1 ,1 Student Government. The most recent version of that draft policy is
F >L.‘ ‘ dated September 23, 1974. The major provisions of that draft are
” A 1 the following:

1. Providing that in January of each year one copy of each a!
student's grade record for the preceding fall semester is ‘
filed in the Office of the Associate Dean of Students for '
Residence Halls Programming. ‘



2. Providing the following conditions for maintenance and use
of those grade records:

a. That the grade slips shall in no case be removed
from the Office of the Associate Dean.

b. That residence hall Head Residents and Assistant
Head Residents shall have access to the grade slips
of those students who reside in their respective
living units.

c. That, when a Head Resident or Assistant Head Resident
believes that the academic program of a student
can be enhanced by individual assistance and advice,
he may provide to the student's Corridor Advisor
only that information regarding the student's academic
status which is needed in order that the Corridor
Advisor may be of assistance to the student.

d. That the Corridor Advisor may then offer assistance
to the individual student and may make referrals to )
appropriate University faculty and staff for counseling
and academic assistance.

a. That residence hall staff may take appropriate steps
to recognize superior academic achievement by hall
residents, but that a student resident who requests ,
that he not be so recognized shall not be given such Na
recognition. 3


f. That under no circumstances shall the names of
students with their grade point averages, or of students
by GPA categories, be posted in the residence halls.

g. That all residence hall staff members who have access
to the grade slips and the information obtained
therefrom shall respect the confidentiality of all
information obtained from a student's academic record;
that a Head Resident or Assistant Head Resident shall
_; _ not share such information with anyone other than the ,
-j a: - student in question, the student's Corridor Advisor, and
‘ ‘ those staff who have specific, legitimate need for such
information; and that the Corridor Advisor shall not share figfi
} \


such information with anyone other than the student
in question.



_ ,4, fly-.-~mm~ —__—»-..umvrr~:¢:znn~-~~39"'””""“""-" ' ‘ ' " ' ‘ '


minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont 3981

3. Providing that any staff member who violates the above—stated

policies and procedures shall jeopardize his or her employment
with the Department of Residence Halls Programming.

4. Providing that the above guidelinesshallbe distributed annually
to all residence hall staff members and publicly posted for the
information of student residents.

That draft, dated September 23, 1974, was submitted to the Senate
Advisory Committee on Student Affairs for its consideration. Then came
the Buckley Amendments — the initial amendment and the amendment to
the amendment — designed to insure students the right of access to
their official records and to guard against release of student records
to unauthorized third parties.

In that context I sought advice from the University’s legal counsel,
Mr. Darsie, who informed me that both state and federal law (including
the Buckley Amendment) permit "the internal release of student academic
records to employees of the institution who have a legitimate educational
interest in the academic progress of students. It further appears that,
in view of the job descriptions of the head residents and corridor advisors,
as well as the general purposes of the residence hall program, head
residents and corridor advisers are University employees who have a
legitimate interest in the academic progress of students.”

However, there was and continues to be some confusion in the inter—
pretation of certain provisions in the federal statute; and I therefore
decided to suspend during the current semester the aforementioned
residence hall staff use of information about student academic performance.
The suspension holds at least during the current semester and until there
is further clarfification of the Buckley Amendment.

I wish to turn briefly to the February 21 memorandum addressed to the
members of this body, providing background information for the agenda
item now under consideration. The opening paragraph of that memorandum
contains the clause, "in early 1973 [which should read 1974] when student
grades were posted in the dormitories”, and the phrase, "the posting of
student grades". I offer a plea for at least a minimal degree of
reporting accuracy. Grades of students were 395 posted. Specific grade
point averages of individual students were 22E posted. In January 1974,
in two or three residence halls the names of students whose GPA's were
3.5 or higher were posted as a means of recognizing students of superior
academic achievement. It might be noted that the publication of such
lists of high academic achievers has not been an uncommon practice by
academic deans at UK.


However, the September 23 policy drafted by my office and outlined
above proposes the termination of such posting of names of students above
a specified GPA level.

Now, with respect to the recommendation before you, "Grades of H
students shall not be made available to residence hall staff members :
let me state my concern personally and directly. My concern centers
primarily on the first—year freshman who is encountering the task of
living away from home perhaps for the first time in his life. Although
his or her primary tasks at the University are academic in nature, the








. s”... View _ _





umaaxxflvuvzm‘w' fAd-mmmfiW

Minutes of the University Senate, March 10, 1975 — cont

problems of budgeting of time, study habits, etc., are probably most
apparent in the student's residential setting, in most cases a UK residence
hall where there are staff who are prepared to assist the student if

the staff are aware, at least in a general way, that the student is ”a.
not meeting the University's academic standards. It is my belief that b
many freshmen go through the entire year without really being noticed

and assisted by anyone, and further that active reaching out is often

needed rather than waiting passively for the academically deficient

freshman to seek help.

I recognize that there are contrary arguments and concerns which
will incline many members of this body to vote in support of the recommen— ‘
dation under consideration. Among those concerns are:

First, the current, heightened concern for protecting the
privacy of student records.

Second, the fact that the age of majority for most purposes
is eighteen and the accompanying belief that students gp‘
should be treated as adults and not spoon—fed. "

Third, UK's precedent for separation of academic and non-
academic policy—making.

There is considerable legitimacy in each of those concerns, but in
the interest of balance, I hope you will keep the following questions in