xt7fxp6v1f97 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7fxp6v1f97/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1971-10-28 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, October 28, 1971 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 28, 1971 1971 1971-10-28 2020 true xt7fxp6v1f97 section xt7fxp6v1f97
3258 Minutes of the University Senate, October 11, 1971 — cont
The Chairman ruled that the last item on the agenda, that of
recommendations relative to parliamentary procedure in the Senate
(circulated to the faculty under date of October 6, 1971) would be
held over to the next meeting of the University Senate on October 28,
1971.
The Senate adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary
MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 28, 1971
The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Thursday,
October 28, 1971, in Room 118 of the Classroom Building. Chairman Rovin
presided. Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Kurt Anschel*, James R.
Barclay*, Charles E. Barnhart, Wendell E. Berry*, Harmon C. Bickley*,
Robert H. Biggerstaff*, Garnett L- Bradford*, Eugene B. Bradley*, Betty J.
Brannon*, William R. Brown*, Collins W. Burnett*, Lewis W. Cochran*, Glenwood L.
Creech, Dan M. Daffron, George W. Denemark*, Loretta Denman*, Robert 0. Evans*,
Lawrence E. Forgy, Jr., Stuart Forth*, Donald T. Frazier*, George H. Gadbois*,
Eugene B. Gallagher*, Jess L. Gardner*, Charles P. Graves, Jack B. Hall,
Willburt D. Ham*, Joseph Hamburg, Brenda J. Hamer, Charles F. Haywood*,
Virgil W. Hays*, James W. Herron*, Raymon D. Johnson*, Pam S. Johnston*,
James A. Knoblett*, Robert G. Lawson, Donald C. Leigh, Paul Mandelstam*,
Leslie L. Martin*, Roger M. McCoy*, William C. McCrary*, Theodore H. Mueller*,
Thomas P. Mullaney*, Arthur F. Nicholson, Larry D. Noe, Elbert W. Ockerman*,
J. W. Patterson*, Curtis Phipps*, Nicholas J. Pisacano, Herbert G. Reid*,
Wimberly C. Royster, Robert W. Rudd*, Donald S. Shannon*, Jon M. Shepard,
D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A. Singletary*, Eugene J. Small*, John B. Stephenson*,
Robert H. Stroup*, Thomas B. Stroup, Dennis D. Studkey, Joseph V. Swintosky,
Charles G. Talbert*, Norman L. Taylor*, M. Stanley Wall, Harry E. Wheeler*,
Cornelia B. Wilbur*, William R. Willard, Paul A. Willis*, Joseph W. Wilson,
Alfred D. Winer, Miroslava B. Winer, Ernest F. Witte*, and Robert G. Zumwinkle*.
(One person signed the roll whose name we are unable to read.)
Visitors were permitted to attend the meeting.
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 11, 1971 were approved
as circulated.
On behalf of the College of Medicine Dr. Peter Bosomworth read resolutions
on the death of Dr. John S. Chambers following which the Senate stood for a
moment of silence in respect to Dr. Chambers and in acceptance of the resolutions.
On October 9, 1971 death claimed Dr. John S. (Brick) Chambers,
retired director of the University Health Service and a driving force
behind the creation of the Albert B. Chandler Medical Center and its
related colleges. In the brief span of his 82 years, Dr. Chambers
managed to establish himself in the mainstream of American medical
practice and biomedical research as well as to become a leading figure
in the affairs of the University of Kentucky and the Medical Center.
*Absence explained
«La
.3:
«“H
.2:
IS.
Minutes of the University Senate, October 28, 1971 — cont
Born in Calloway County to William and Louisiana Chambers, Dr.
Chambers grew up in anticipation of a medical career. In 1907, he
entered the Kentucky State College, forerunner of the University of
Kentucky. After several economic setbacks, William Chambers graduated
in 1913 and entered the University of Michigan School of Medicine,
receiving his M.D. in 1921. While at the University of Michigan, he
served as a research and teaching assistant in bacteriology and several
related fields.
Following his marriage to Annabel Grainger and a brief period of
private practice in Paducah, Dr. Chambers moved his new family to
Lexington where he resumed private practice. One of the pioneers in
research medicine, Dr. Chambers early established his own medical
research facilities, among the first in central Kentucky.
Feeling the need to supplement his income as a private practitioner,
he became a public health officer for Fayette County. In 1928, President
Frank L. McVey appointed Dr. Chambers director of the University of
Kentucky Health Service and professor of public health. He held this
post until his retirement in 1957. He was also emeritus clinical
professor of medicine.
On the suggestion of Dr. McVey, Dr. Chambers undertook a study
of medical practice and medical education in Kentucky. It was out of
this effort and ensuing discussions with President McVey that the idea
of a medical school in Lexington first took shape. During this period,
the vigorous physician reached national stature as the author of
"Medical Service in Kentucky”, published in 1931, and "The Conquest of
Cholera", published in 1938.
Unfortunately, the realization of Dr. Chambers' dream of a great
medical school at UK was delayed several decades. Two world wars and
a major depression, as well as waning interest in the Commonwealth,
discouraged all attempts at his goal. Finally toward the end of the
1940s Dr. Chambers, undaunted in his ambition, came in contact with a
group of several other farsighted and dedicated men who shared his aims.
Along with Dr. Francis Massie, Dr. Coleman Johnston, Mr. Guy Huguelet,
Mr. Arnold Hanger and several others, Dr. Chambers helped to create
the Kentucky Medical Foundation, which was to serve as the vehicle for
Dr. Chambers' dream. It was the Foundation that campaigned for the
Medical Center (it had been decided during this period that a school of
medicine would be insufficient) and finally enlisted the support of
Mr. Albert E. Chandler for whom the present Medical Center is named.
In 1957, ground was broken for the Medical Center; that same
year Dr. Chambers resigned as director of the University of Kentucky
Health Service. Upon the celebration of the groundbreaking Governor
Chandler presented Dr. Chambers with a silver tray which bore the
following inscription:
"To John S. Chambers commemorating the groundbreaking
for the University of Kentucky Medical Center, December
12, 1957. You had the vision of a great medical center
and worked for its achievement."
It is not to be assumed from Dr. Chambers' tireless efforts in
behalf of the Medical Center that he isolated himself from other
': JKF'
. £3?
. 42m
12:21::
now
1.
f...” V
mm.
mil
Minutes of the University Senate, October 28, 1971 — cont
currents in the modern world. It is to his greater credit that he
kept his dream in the context of the needs of the Commonwealth and
the Nation and visualized the Medical Center in reference to the
development of the medical sciences and arts.
Besides being a great educator, administrator, and man of vision,
Dr. Chambers was widely known as a fine gentleman, a tender and com—
passionate family man and an altruistic humanist who deeply felt the
needs and anguishes of humanity in general. His worth as a friend
and confidant will long be remembered by those whose lives he touched.
It is with the most profound and heartfelt sorrow that we, his
colleagues, in the Medical Center that he dreamed of and helped to
build, submit this resolution as an expression of sympathy to his
family and friends and in deep appreciation of his service to the
University, the Commonwealth and to humanity.
The Senate gave tacit approval to a postponement of old business in
order to move to the main item on the agenda, that of the Code of Faculty
Responsibilities. Again, the Senate gave tacit approval to use the meeting
for discussion only of the Code. The Chairman then called on Professor
Paul Oberst to explain the background of the proposed Code.
When the Senate Council decided to circulate the proposed Code
of Faculty Responsibilities I wrote a four—page cover letter which I
think a lot of people have read but I mention it in passing. I don't
propose to read it to you but I would like to make a few remarks about
the background of codes of professional responsibility in the United
States.
I spent some years defending academic freedom and tenure in and
about the United States and I seldom address myself to the subject —
whether it is on the local luncheon club circuit or, more recently,
to the Southern University Conference, a group of southern college
presidents in Miami Beach last spring. What I am almost immediately
met with is the question ”Why do you talk about nothing but your
freedom and tenure? Why don't you ever talk about responsibility?"
I was nonplused at this question in 1946 but I gradually Worked out
an answer and it goes something like this: "I am a lawyer and subject
to the Code of our profession and we have a committee which enforces
it; but I am also a professional teacher on a university campus and we
have worked out a division of labor there. The faculty strenuously
supports academic freedom and tenure and we leave the enforcement of
professional responsibility largely to the administration of the
University —— a force which, of course, is not available to an independent
practitioner." I think this was a fairly good answer at one time but
it isn't any more. One of the things that has happened in recent years
is that there has been more concern over the question of faculty
responsibility on the part of faculty members. Committee A., of course,
is the AAUP committee on academic freedom and tenure, but Committee B,
which was the next committee founded back in 1915, was a committee on
professional ethics.
At the beginning of the Sixties there was a revived effort, on
the part of Committee B, headed by Jack Dawson of Harvard, to write
a statement on professional ethics which came down in April of 1966
and was adopted by the organization. It is a general statement of the
professor's duties as a teacher, as a colleague, as a member of the
% l.‘ /—————-‘
. 3-. ‘ '
ft; .
l‘ ‘h'fi
.__.‘,_..~.1
v
T
I;
l
l
K‘P‘
is: a,
a. r
3“.
Minutes of the Univeriity Senate, October 28, 1971 — cont
institution, as a member of the community, and so on —— written in rather broad
terms —— discussing his ethical responsibilities in each of these areas.
If I looked at it chronologically, I would suspect that the next matter of
importance was the problems that arose in New York which caused the Legislature
of New York to pass the New York Education Law, Article 129 A, in 1969, requiring,
within three months, that each institution adopt rules of maintenance of public
order. Faculty members in those institutions in New York quickly became concerned
in participating in the drafting of rules of maintenance of public order.
Beyond that, there became the further interest in some sort of statement of
responsibility, and in October 11,1970, a responsibility statement was produced,
again at the Council meeting of AAUP and I think perhaps some of the closing items
in that statement, after discussing types of responsibilities in general and the
extent to which they have been complied with, were some suggestions for the
future. It says that the faculty statements in regard to academic freedom and
tenure, procedural safeguards and dismissal proceedings, and the statement on
ethics, needed to be supplemented; that preventive as well as disciplinary actions
Should be emphasized. But it went on to say: ”Systematic attention should be
given to questions related to sanction other than dismissal, such as warnings and
reprimands, and further, there is need for the faculty to assume a more positive
role as guardian of academic values against unjustified assaults from its own
members.” This, I think, in part, along with other things led to a great deal
of interest in faculty responsibility statements, and dozens, indeed hundreds
of universities and colleges throughout the United States have since worked out
and adopted statements. Two of the more famous ones are Stanford's and Berkeley's
but they have also been adopted, as I indicated in my memorandum, in a number of
other institutions. These statements have been adopted, sometimes with an
explicit statement that they rest on the 1966 statement on professional ethics and
the 1970 statement of freedom of responsibility. That led to, as I say, some
interest throughout the United States in this particular subject.
I think there are
this national interest.
other things which led to the interest, locally, beside
Another thing that happened was that we adopted a
Student Code of Rights and it is an old legal proposition that for every right
there is a correlative duty or responsibility; and one of the problems became
"If you do have rights, in what way can the correlative duties which that code
of rights puts upon faculty members be enforced?" and so the matter became a
subject of some interest on that basis.
Finally, following the so—called legislative history which I produced,
meaning the background of this particular proposal in this institution, was the
appointment of an ad hoc committee on academic responsibilities of the faculty
by Professor Plucknett—:; as of this time last year the Chairman of the Senate
Council. The Committee met, wrestled with the problem, developed a survey
instrument which was put out, and then,shall we say, disappeared, without issuing
a report of any kind.
At this point, the Senate Council undertook, on the basis of the interest
indicated by the faculty survey, on the basis of the problems arising out of the
Student Code, on the basis of what was going on in other institutions of the
United States, itself, to act as a committee to attempt to go forward with the
drafting some sort of statement or code on faculty responsibilities. I was not
here during the summer and I would like to stop at this point and turn the chair
back to Professor Rovin so that he can describe what has happened further.
Dr. Rovin: In May, the original committee, for a number of reasons, requested
that it be relieved of its responsibilities and specifically requested the
3262 Minutes of the University Senate, October 28, 1971 — cont
Senate Council to assume the responsibility for a report and proposal for a
code of faculty responsibilities.
A sub—committee comprising Mike Adelstein, Garrett Flickinger, Howell
Hopson, William Plucknett, and myself met weekly throughout the summer and '
drafted a proposal; the preface of the proposal, as already indicated, was
drafted by Paul Oberst. The basis for much of the proposal came from the
various codes that had been formulated and which were in effect at the insti—
tutions indicated in the preface and from some institutions not indicated there.
In some instances, statements were lifted almost verbatim from these documents.
The proposal was then considered and altered by the entire Council during the
course of many lengthy meetings. The Council considered a number of alternatives
including doing nothing, submitting a simple statement endorsing the previous
AAUP statements on ethics in 1966 and 1970, submitting a detailed statement of
responsibilities without sanctions. A fourth alternative was to submit a
detailed statement of responsibilities with sanctions to be administered by
administrators; and the fifth, which is the current proposal, to be
administered by the faculty. By majority vote, with some dissension, the
Senate Council elected to submit the current proposal. This proposal was
submitted as a written basis for discussion and on which to base alterations.
It was not construed to be a perfect document by any means. It is already
recognized that many items are unclear, some need to be altered, some deleted,
and others added. A number of appropriate suggestions have already been made
in writing. We spent yesterday with the Council discussing these and I,
personally, want to thank these people for expressing themselves both in
writing and in person.
a.“ «-
‘1
\
.
It is also recognized that additional assistance is required and to this
end it is a recommendation of the Council that we spend this afternoon in a
discussion only session, and that no action be taken.
Extensive discussion took place centered almost entirely on Section I, paragraph H. t
Points raised were: .
that the Code failed to mention responsibilities to one's discipline, to
one's colleagues; and there is no mention of excellence or search for h
knowledge ; Q
. 1
that the poll taken of the faculty is inadequate and the faculty, as_a whole,
should be polled;
that the title of the document is very important and should be directed at the
focus of what the document is about, faculty responsibility being a general
term which means many things to many people;
that the Senate should not be taken out of the deliberative and judgment area
and thrust into the administering area of the University structure;
that the proposed Code should take into account the responsibilities and
obligations of members of the graduate and professional faculty of the
University; \
. . . vtnm
the p0551ble use of this Code as a means of personal or profe851onal {gm
harrassment, not only administrative, but faculty and student harrassment
as well;
,
‘;7
51‘s
A
‘lW/s
I
m
Minutes of the University Senate, October 28, 1971 — cont
the need for a separate statement detailing the obligations of the faculty
toward the graduate student;
that some provision should be made for those faculty who may be lecturing from
old notes but who are rendering outstanding performance in other areas;
that the meaning of the phrase "faculty members shall refrain from acquiring I
or maintaining disciplinary or counseling information” in Section 1,
paragraph H, be explained;
that the words "irrelevant” and ”improper" be defined;
that the Senate receive the document back for drastic revision and expansion;
further, that the Council take into account the interest of the faculty and
enlarge the constituency of their writing committee to include members of the
University Senate and an administrator or two so that when the document is
brought back to the Senate, it will be able to support it;
that the addition of a statement at the end of paragraph H, Section I, to the
effect that the faculty member will respect the confidentiality of personal
information conveyed to him, will be sufficient;
that evidence and documentation be given of the things the Senate is trying
to attack so that a document can be written which will help alleviate those
specific problems, then if in the future some additional problems arise
that are not pertinent to the document, the Senate can go through the
appropriate amendment procedures;
the possibility that the problems that exist can be dealt with in the "
ordinary channels that are now available; mfg,
that the items in Section I, paragraph C, and the second sentence in
paragraph E are a part of the Rules gf_the University Senate and do not belong
in this document;
that Section 1, paragraph G, should either be deleted or reworded so that
it is a positive statement;
that the Academic Ombudsman, as presently structured, has no punitive
functions and should be left out of this document;
that what is needed from the Senate is a statement, endorsed by the Board
of Trustees, that faculty members shall behave at all times in a responsible
professional manner; and that if any deviation from the responsibility and
professionality of the faculty member's behavior is alleged, it shall be the
duty of the various committees of the faculty to investigate these and set
up a trial mechanism of professional peers to assess whatever penalties
seem appropriate ranging from reprimand to dismissal;
that what is needed is a document that lays down broad ethical principles
while not getting down to such specifics;
that the suggestion that the problems that exist can be dealt with through
the ordinary channels now available presumes that the individual has the
time to fight the system every time and that no intimidation will be assessed
on the student; that the faculty should own up to its responsibilities as a
3264
‘Minutes of the University Senate, October 28, 1971 v cont
group and set down a set of its responsibilities.
Motion was made to adjourn but at the Chairman's suggestion that it be withdrawn
and the discussion continue, the motion was withdrawn.
A point was raised that a code of faculty responsibility should be prepared
that would be more in keeping with the whole University; that this Code seemed
to be directed more at the undergraduate level; and further, that input from the
administration should be obtained to see how they feel.
A straw vote of the Senate was taken which indicated that the Senate felt there
was need for a code of faculty responsibility.
A straw vote was taken of whether the Senate thought the present document was too
specific. The vote was about half and half with a slight edge by those voting ”No".
Suggestion was made by a Senator that a volunteer be designated from each College
of the University to assume the responsibility of obtaining the views of that
College, in writing, and that a similar action be directed toward the University
administration at the vice presidential level to obtain its views.
Following several suggestions from the floor of how best to proceed, Chairman
Rovin suggested that the Senate adjourn to the next Senate meeting on November
8th; that in the meantime he would write a letter to each of the colleges requesting
that they get some consensus of the document and feed it to the Senate Council
before the 8th which might be used as a basis for that meeting. The Senate agreed .
to this. [
I
The Senate adjourned at 5:05 p.m. I
J
Kathryne W. Shelburne
Recording Secretary
It is the sense of the University Senate that the right to free
and open discussion of ideas is imperative to the learning process; that
the interrogation of students about the content of class discussion by
law enforcement officiers can have the effect'of intimidating students
and can be destructive of the learning situation; and that the Univer—
sity of Kentucky has a obligation to students, faculty and the people
of the Commonwealth to promote the free discussion of ideas; and that
the University of Kentucky should refrain from releasing class rolls
and other University records to law enforcement agencies if the use
of such information is to inquire into the content of class discussions.
[NNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40506
UNIVERSlTY SENATE COUNCIL
no ADMINISTRATION BUILDING October 15 , 197].
M E M 0 R A N D
Members, University Senate; University Faculty
University Senate Council
Sheldon Rovin, Chairman
SUBJECT: Agenda Item for Senate Meeting, October 28, 1971
(Proposal for a Code of Faculty Responsibilities)
In accordance with the Rules of the University Senate, the Senate Council
circulates the attached proposal for consideration and action by the
University Senate at its special called meeting of October 28, 1971.
Legislative History
The proposal for a Code of Faculty Responsibilities at the University of
Kentucky began with the appointment, on September 30, 1970, of a Senate
Ad Egg Committee on Academic Responsibilities of the Faculty by Professor
William K. Plucknett, then Chairman of the Senate Council. The members
included Professors Art Gallaher, Virgil Hays, Paul Oberst, Robert Rudd,
Robert Straus, with J. R. Ogletree, Chairman. The committee was charged
by the Senate Council with surveying the faculty, administration, and
Student Government to determine the credibility of establishing a Senate
policy statement on faculty responsibilities, items to be contained in
such a statement, and mechanisms to deal with alleged abuses short of
dismissal hearings. It was charged with submitting a statement to the
Senate Council, if the survey favored such a statement. The committee
was to report by December 31, 1970.
A survey instrument was devised and circulated early in 1971 to the
faculty, administration and members of Student Government. Some 218
replies were received and compiled by college, department and rank. In
May, the committee found itself unable to submit a final report and
requested the Senate Council to assume its functions.
Totals of the returns on the questionnaire demonstrated the following
responses:
1. Knowledge of cases of abdication of academic responsibilities
by faculty members? 58% yes; (126 of 218)
2. Need for a policy statement on academic responsibilities of
faculty members? 89% yes; (150 of 169)
3. Who should develop a policy statement? Senate, 50% (153);
Administration, 42% (126); Trustees, 8% (24). (Total 303
because of multiple answers.)
Who should develop procedures? Senate 61% (124); President
21% (43); Board 14% (20).
Who should administer the policy? Academic Administration
31% (68); Senate 23% (50); Separate judicial body 18% (39);
Members, University Senate and Faculty
October 15, 1971
Ombudsman 7% (l6); Self—policing on the individual faculty
members 20% (45).
In what areas should faculty responsibilities be delineated?
To students: 179; to the institution, 147; to colleagues, 99;
to one's discipline, 101; to the public, 107. (Total 533;
multiple responses.)
An analysis of these responses indicated a desire for a statement of
academic responsibilities with procedures for enforcement vested in the
faculty (through the Senate, judicial body or an ombudsman) as opposed
to either administrative enforcement or ”self-policing” by the individual
faculty member. It also suggested that the Senate Council should take
the initiative in developing the statement and the procedures and that
the statement should cover a wide range of responsibilities.
The Senate Council, through a sub—committee and special drafting sessions,
has worked through the summer and early fall to prepare draft proposals
for submission to the Senate, contained herein as Annexes A, B, and C.
Analogous Action in Other Institutions
During the past two years there have been wide—spread attacks on tenure.
Some of it has come from students who see it as a hindrance to student
reform of the universities; some comes from politicians and the public
who see it as an obstacle to disposal of faculty members who sympathized
with students in confrontations; some comes from the misunderstanding of
its operational uses and purposes by persons who have never taken the
trouble to understand. A recent Courier—Journal editorial. October ll,
1971, entitled, ”On clearing the deadwood out of those halls of ivy”,
depicted its college as plagued equally with the 1937 Ph.D. bent over
his yellowed lecture notes and the Great Man who never is around to
teach.
One response to these attacks has been the proposal that tenure be
retained for its advantage in protecting academic freedom, but that it
be accompanied by an effective and enforceable Code of Faculty Responsi—
bilities to ensure ”accountability” of the individual faculty member
who might take advantage of the policy of academic freedom in a way
which would not justify charges of "unfitness" and dismissal.
One of the more recent of these codes is the Code of Professional
Conduct adopted on February 11, 1971, by the Academic Senate of the
University of California (Berkeley). This Code rests on the 1966
Statement of Professional Ethics and the 1970 Statement of Freedom
and Responsibility approved by the American Association of University
Professors. A similar "Code of Faculty Responsibilities” was proposed
in May, 1971, by the University of Utah Commission to Study Tenure.
Variations are found at Michigan State University, University of
Illinois, University of Washington, University of Michigan, while
at Iowa, the State Board enacted a Code of Personal Conduct, and
Oregon State's Board of Higher Education amended an Administrative
Code to provide new sanctions and a code of prescribed conduct.
Members, University Senate and Faculty
October 15, 1971
Explanation of Attached Proposals
l. Although it is possible that the Senate could adopt the Code of
Faculty Responsibilities solely on its own initiative as part of the Rules
of the University Senate, it seemed questionable whether there was authority
to enforce such a code under the existing Governing Regulations. These
Regulations delegate powers to the Senate to determine educational policy
and advise and recommend ~— Governing Regulations, May 1970, Section IV, p. 13.
Further, they state that the Senate has ”no management or administrative
functions”. Since the Senate Council believes that a Code of Faculty
Respon81bilities should not only be adopted as "academic policy", but
should be administered by the faculty through existing and authorized
structures, the Council is proposing that the Senate request the Board
to amend the Governing Regulations to authorize and direct the Senate to:
(l) adopt a Code of Faculty Responsibilities;
(2) provide appropriate procedures and sanctions;
(3) amend it from time to time as experience dictates.
2. The Council has also drafted said proposed Code of Faculty Responsibilities
complete with
(l) reasonably precise statements of various responsibilities
of faculty members to s‘_iden
the public;
(2) a detailed provision for enforcement, providing for fair
hearings and appeals;
w_sfl colleagues, the institution and
(3) detailed sanctions ngpro pr .iate t " 'che of responsibility.
di
It is proposed that the Senate dopt this ,ode cone tionally effective
upon Board acceptance or the proposed amendment? to indicate to the
Board of Trustees the precise codification that it would enact pursuant
to Board authorization
3. Finally} it is proposed that the Board also be requested to amend
the Governing Regulations, Section X, 65b, to provide a range of penalties
other than dis charge in ”Termination” cases where the alleged incompetence,
immorality or neglert of duty does not justify discharge in the judgment
of the hearing and reviewing eut horitiesc This would make more specific
the stipulation {Governing Regulations, p. 32) that an ”academic penalty
less than dismissal” may be recommended by the ad_hg£_Hearing Committee
in dismissal cases where it would be ””10 eappropriate."
A Foo note on the l1ooosed Code of Faculty Responsibilities
The Code of Faculty Res sponsibilities is not a mere statement of professional
ethics. Instead of 'nr ofess ors are ex ected to..i.”, it says "You shall
P
not do this or tha t’. Although the document is not a criminal code, it
has been written in language as precise as possible to avoid the problems
of inadequate notice of the offensive conduct or the problem of "void for
vagueness.”
Members, University Senate and Faculty
October 15, 1971
The offenses described are divided into two categories; irresponsible
conduct toward students and irresponsible conduct toward others (colleagues,
the institution, and the public). Offenses in the former category are
dealt with by the Academic Ombudsman mechanism, with appropriate appeals,
while offenses of the latter sort are dealt with by the Committee on
Privilege and