xt7gqn5z9622 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7gqn5z9622/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1985-12-09  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, December 9, 1985 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 9, 1985 1985 1985-12-09 2020 true xt7gqn5z9622 section xt7gqn5z9622 LHMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
December 9, 1985, at 3:05 p.m. in ROOM 116 of the THOMAS HUNT MORGAN

Minutes of ll November 1985
Chairman's Remarks

a. Proposal to Establish a Graduate Center in Biomedical
Engineering (circulated under date of 21 November 1985)

b. Proposed revision of the General Studies Curriculum.
(Final Report of Ad Egg Committee circulated prior to the
November Senate meeting and also attached to the November
Senate minutes. Additional Senate Council material and
proposed amendments from Senators circulated under date of
25 November 1985.)

PLEASE NOTE: As a number of amendments have been offered to the
proposed revision of the General Studies curriculum,
several votes are likely at the meeting. For this
reason we ask that all voting members of the Senate sit
in the center section of the room and that all
non-voting members and visitors sit in the side


There will be a special meeting of the University
Senate on Monday, January 20, 1986. If the Senate has
not completed action on the General Studies curriculum
by around 5 p.m. at the December meeting, it will
resume deliberations on this item at the special
meeting. Also at this meeting Vice President Jim King
and Budget Director Ed Carter will discuss the 1986-88
biennial University budget request with the Senate and
CHE and legislative action on it to that time.




 Page 2
University Senate Agenda: December 9, 1985
25 November 1985

A REMINDER: The Senate's annual end of the semester social will
take place from 4 to 6 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10th
at the Alumni House corner of Rose and Euclid Streets.
All Senators and spouses are invited.

Randall Dahl



The University Senate met in regular session at 3:05 p.m., Monday, December 9,
l985, in room ll6 of the Thomas Hunt Morgan Building.

Bradley C. Canon, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Frank Allana, R. A. Altenkirch*, Charles T. Ambrose*, Charles
E. Barnhart, Susan M. Belmore*, Brian Bergman, Raymond F. Betts, D. Allan
Butterfield*, Emmett Costich, Herbert N. Drennon, Anthony Eardley, Kimberly Ellis,
Stanley Feldman*, Richard N. Furst, Leonard E. Heller, Roger w. Hemken*, Alison
Hodges, Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu, Susan Johnson, Robert G. Lawson, Edgar
D. Maddox, Paul Mandelstam*, Sally S. Mattingly*, Peggy Meszaros*, Robert C. Noble*,
Merrill w. Packer*, Bobby C. Pass*, John J. Piecoro*, Otis A. Singletary*, Louis
Straub, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Kenneth R. Thompson, Paul A. Willis, Constance P.

The Minutes of the meeting of November ll, l985, were approved as circulated
with the exception of changing ”September" to "November" in the first line of the
first paragraph.

Chairman Canon made the following announcements:

"The first announcement concerns the Senate Council
election results. Bill Lyons of the Political Science
Department and Bob Hemenway of the English Department were
elected to the Senate Council. There was no majority for
the third seat. In the subsequent election Emmett Costich
in the College of Dentistry was elected to the Senate
Council. In addition, Doug Rees, who was a member of the
Senate Council, has taken a year's leave of absence. Loys
Mather of Agricultural Economics will replaCe Dr. Rees on
the Council for the forthcoming year.

The second announcement concerns the Board of Trustees
election. We are going to run the nomination ballot
again. There were sufficient problems with the ballot and
its distribution that the Rules Committee and the Senate
Council decided to do it over. The ballot will go out soon
and will be due back Monday, December 23. This way we can
get the biographical information on the six nominees and
conduct the runoff elections in the normal fashion toward
the end of January, so that the final results will be known
by the middle of April.

The third announcement is the Senate Fall Social is
tomorrow afternoon. The President will be at the social
and members of the Board of Trustees are invited and some
usually attend. As you know, the food is usually excellent.

*Absence Explained


 Fourth, there will be a special meeting of the Senate
on Monday, January 20. At that time we will hear a pre—
sentation from Vice President Jim King and Associate Vice
President for Planning and Budget Ed Carter about the
University's biennial budget request for l985—88 along with
how the request has fared both in the Council on Higher
Education and in Governor Collinsl budget request to the
legislature. Vice President King and Associate Vice
President Carter will open themselves to questions from the
floor about the general nature of the budget. Also at the
January meeting we will continue to debate the proposed
University Studies Curriculum assuming if it is not re—
solved today, and with fifteen amendments on the floor, I
doubt if it will be.

Finally, let me report on the Senate Council's activ-
ities. The Senate Council plans to have a breakfast
meeting with members of the Fayette County legislative
delegation this coming Monday, December 16. We will dis-
cuss UK's goals and needs such as more research equipment,
competitive stipends for research and teaching assistants
and the like. We just might also mention the need for more
competitive salaries for faculty and staff members. If any
of you feel there is some topic that needs to be discussed,
please get in touch with the Senate Council Office sometime
this week or with some member of the Senate Council, and we

will try to relay this particular point to the members of
the Fayette County delegation. Let me emphasize this is an
informal meeting. It is basically a session where we get
to know one another. It is not one where we are all going
to stand up and make speeches.

Another Senate Council item is in regard to course
purgation. As some of you probably know, the Senate Rules
require that if a course has not been taught in four years,
the Senate Council informs the deans of this and asks that
the course be purged from the books unless the dean sends a
request to keep the course on the books. Usually if the
dean sends a request, the course is kept on the books.

This year we found some courses in the Bulletin that had
literally not been taught for a decade. The Senate Council
discussed this at its last meeting and felt that some
action needed to be taken. There are two reasons for
this. One is that the Visiting Accreditation Team of the
Southern Association of Colleges severely criticized the
University in its l982 report for having courses on the
books that had not been taught for many years. Secondly,
we believe there is a truth in advertising issue here. It
seems to be false advertising to say that the course is
taught when it actually has not been taught since l976 or
so. The Senate Council plans to effectuate a policy of
gurggng courses that have not been taught for nearly a

eca e.


 Let me also mention some activities of standing com-
mittees of the Senate. The Committee on Academic Planning
and Priorities chaired by Stan Brunn of Geography is look—
ing into the Centers of Excellence that the University is
in the process of establishing. As you know, these were
first mentioned in the budget and the five-year plan that
were released last September. There was no academic con-
sultation with the Senate relating to establishing these
Centers, although there usually was consultation with the
areas involved. The Senate Council was curious as to what
Centers of Excellence were, what the implications were,
what the implications were for areas that were not Centers
of Excellence, etc. This committee has met with the
Chancellors and is in the process of finding out the ans-
wers to these questions and in the process of developing a
mechanism for broader academic consultation in future
efforts to establish Centers of Excellence.

The Senate's Committee on Institutional Finances and
Resource Allocation chaired by Joe Krislov of the Economics
Department has made its project this year to obtain and
assimilate information on the University's budget and on
its fiscal options. It is largely because of the action of
this committee that Vice President King and Associate Vice
President Carter will speak to the Senate next month on the
University's budget.

The ad hog Committee on Cheating and Plagiarism has
issued a report which the Senate Council has approved sub—
ject to some very minor questions, and it will probably be
coming before this body in February.

The Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
chaired by Loys Mather is working on a proposal to try to
solve the perennial problem of how to handle situations
where instructors give final exams before the final exam.
If we can solve that problem, it will be a great feather in
our cap.

I feel it is important that the Senate be kept in-
formed of what the Senate Council is doing."

The first action item on the agenda was the proposal to establish a Graduate
Center in Biomedical Engineering. The Chair recognized Professor Wilbur Frye,
Chair-elect of the Senate Council. Professor Frye, on behalf of the Senate Council,
moved approval of the proposal to establish a Graduate Center in Biomedical Engi—
neering. Professor Frye said the proposal was to establish a multidisciplinary
Graduate Center for research, teaching and service in Biomedical Engineering at the
University of Kentucky; The Graduate Center would be under the Graduate School.

The proposal has been reviewed by the Graduate Council, the Senate's Academic Organ—
ization and Structure Committee and the Senate Council as well as faculty and
appropriate administrative personnel. This proposal was circulated to members of
the Senate under date of November 21, T985.


 The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Dean Royster was present to
answer any questions. There was no discussion and the motion, which passed unani-
mously, reads as follows:

Proposal: It is proposed that a multidisciplinary
Graduate Center for research, teaching and
service in Biomedical Engineering be estab-
lished at the University of Kentucky. This
Graduate Center is to be established to
administer multidisciplinary programs which
bring together faculty and students from sev-
eral different disciplines which have strong
interests in biomedical engineering and to
foster collaborative research and learning
efforts among them. The Center will operate
under the auspices of the Graduate School, and
extramural funding shall be sought to comple—
ment University support.

The proposal has been reviewed and approved by
relevant faculty and administrative personnel,
the Graduate Council, the Senate's Academic
Organization and Structure Committee and the
Senate Council.


Biomedical Engineering is an inherently broadly-based
multidiscipline which involves the application of diverse
engineering concepts, methodologies and technologies to a
wide range of problems in the life sciences and medi-
cine. It also is a field of expanding growth and
increasing significance because of the diversity of its
research foci and their technological applications, e.g.
aerospace medicine, sports medicine, industrial and
vehicular safety, bioinstrumentation, rehabilitation
engineeering, cardiovascular biodynamics, and exercise
and stress physiology.

The first biomedical engineering activity at the
University of Kentucky began in the mid—l950's under the
auspices of the Nenner-Gren Research Laboratory. As such
it was one of the first programs in the nation and re-
search and graduate education thrusts in biomedical
engineering have expanded steadily since that time. The
current Biomedical Engineering Program at the University
of Kentucky is centered logistically in the Wenner—Gren
Research Laboratory and is administeredKorganizationally
as a component of the Department of Mechanical Engineer-
ing in the College of Engineering. Its programs have
involved faculty from the Medical Center and from the
Colleges of Engineering, Arts and Sciences and Education.


 In l980 the Deans of the University of Kentucky Colleges of
Engineeering and Medicine jointly sponsored an external
evaluation of the status and the future prospects of bio—
medical engineering activities on campus. This study con-
cluded that there was significant potential for expanding
substantive work in biomedical engineering but that the
current organization of the effort was "constricting.” The
establishment of a free standing Center for Biomedical
Engineering was recomnended, one which would have balanced
support from and participation of both the College of
Engineering and the College of Medicine. Representatives
of these Colleges, the Lexington Campus and Medical Center
Chancellors, the Vice Chancellor for Research and the Dean
of the Graduate School, and the Director of MennerGren
Research Laboratory, have worked together over the last
several years to develop a plan for such a Center.

lhe mission of the Graduate Center for Biomedical Engineer-
ing is four—fold:

l. to foster multidisciplinary and collaborative
research among scientists, engineers and

to administer graduate education programs in
Biomedical Engineering;

to provide support services and technical
assistance in the implementation of health care
delivery systems; and

to administer the research programs and
facilities of the Menner-Gren Laboratory.


lhe research program of the Center will incorporate current
multidisciplinary work of the Menner-Gren Research Labora-
tory and expand upon this foundation. Areas of current
research activity include musculoskeletal biomechanics,
ultrasonics and electromagnetics, cardiomechanics,
pharacokinetics and cardiovascular research. Creation of
the Center will facilitate expansion of research activity
in areas such as rehabilitation engineering, sports medi-
cine, nuclear medicine, diagnostic radiology, radiation
medicine;~surgery, preventive medicine, anatomy, biophysics
or organ system, biomaterials, and neurology, External
sponsorship of research in biomedical engineering comes
from several different sources, including federal agencies
such as the National Institutes of Health, The Department
of Defense, NASA and the Veterans‘ Administration, as well
as private foundations and corporations. The expanded


 collaborative research offered by the creation of the
Center should lead to increased and even more diverse
external support.


e enter will serve as a separate academic unit within
the Graduate School and will provide educational programs
in biomedical engineering at the graduate level. It will
offer courses with program identification and when appro—
priate, the courses will be crosslisted with course
offerings of participating departments and colleagues.
In addition, it will work with other educational units
within the University to develop courses which support
its program.


Serv1ce, technical assistance and other support activi—
ties will be provided by the Center in areas of expertise
of its faculty and research staff, e.g. electronics, com-
puters, analysis, mechanics, and bioinstrumentation.


Ks a separate academic and administrative unit located
within the Graduate School the Center will have a core
faculty consisting of those faculty with a regular
appointment in the Center and participating faculty in
affiliated departments who may have joint appointments in
the Center. The faculty of the Center shall have duties
and responsibilities consistent with the Governing
Regulations. The Center will incorporate the staff and
fac1l1t1es of the Wenner-Gren Research Laboratory.

The Director of the Center will be appointed by the Vice
Chancellor for Research and the Dean of the Graduate
School, will be a member of the Center's core faculty,
and will have rank and responsibilities equivalent to a
department chairperson.

The Center will have an Advisory Council consisting of
the Chancellors of the Lexington Campus and the Medical
Center, the Vice Chancellor for Research and Dean of the
Graduate School, the Dean of the College of Engineering,
the Dean of the College of Medicine, and the deans of at
least two other colleges whose faculty participate in the
Biomedical Engineering Program. The Vice Chancellor for
Research and Dean of the Graduate School shall serve as
Chair of the Advisory Council. The Council shall meet at
least once each semester and shall advise the Vice
Chancellor for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
on the programs and administration of the Center.

The Chair recognized Professor Wilbur Frye for a motion on the proposed Revi-
sion of the General Studies Curriculum. Professor Frye said the item was the one
discussed at length at the last meeting. He said the Council wished to assure the


 the Senate that a specific proposal regarding the implementation and course selec-
tion process would be presented to the Senate for a vote later in the spring. The
Council wanted the Senate to decide at this time whether or not it wished to adopt
the proposed revision in substance. Suggestions from senators, students, University
faculty were solicited. He said a part-time director would be appointed from the
ranks of the active faculty to administer the program for a stated term. The
appointment would be made either by the President or the two Chancellors. Professor
Frye, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved for approval of the Proposed Revision
of the General Studies Curriculum. The proposed revision had been circulated to
members of the Senate under date of November 25, l985.

The Chair announced some rules to govern the debate in order to expedite con-
sideration of the University General Studies package. Chairman Canon placed a
fifteen minute debate limit on each amendment. At the end of that period, a senator
could move to extend debate, but it would take a two—thirds vote to do so.

Likewise, a Senator could move the previous question prior to the fifteen minute
limit, but it would take a two—thirds vote to close the debate. The amendment's
sponsor would speak first and could also have a final rebuttal. Otherwise a person
could speak only once per amendment unless no one else wanted the floor. Each
speaker was limited to two and one—half minutes. The Chair reminded the Senate that
no new substantive amendments could be introduced, but that amendments to the amend—
ments circulated in the December meeting package could be introduced. If intro—
duced, five minutes of debate on the amendment to the amendment would be allowed.

The Chair recognized Chancellor Art Gallaher who spoke on behalf of the entire
package. The appointment of and the charge to the committee was shared by Dr.
Gallaher's Office and the Senate Council. He feels this is a very important

effort. He became sensitive to the need to reconsider the matter of general educa-
tion when he was in the dean's position in Arts and Sciences. He said he used to
visit occasionally with recruiters to determine from them what they felt the
University should be doing to better prepare our students for continued success in
their careers. The view is that continued success in the marketplace in the future
will depend on one's learning how to think and how to learn as opposed to the con-
ventional priorities on what to learn and what to think. There are some projections
that say given the current rate of change that seventy percent of the occupational
inventory by the turn of the century has yet to be invented. He said that was an
ominous problem for those who have to plan education for the future. He felt the
Swift Committee‘s proposal was very modest in substance. He said it asked that a
priority be attached to general studies and that it not be considered as a necessary
evil or an extra. He urged the senators to accept the committee's recommendaton and
not compromise what he considered to be a very modest move in the right direction.

Professor Hans Gesund asked about the changes the Senate Council had made in the
Swift Committee's final report. The Chair said that these changes had been accepted
by the Committee and thus were friendly amendments now incorporated in the Commit-
tee's package and did not need to be voted on. However, because it was not known
that they would not be voted on separately at the November meeting, they were sub—
ject to motions to amend. Professor Gesund said he did not agree with the Senate
Council‘s fifth change (on p. 3) which reads "...that the director have the neces-
sary authority and ability to encourage and even require...” He felt that no
director should be able to tell the faculty what courses it should adopt. The Chair
asked that Professor Gesund submit an amendment in writing for circulation to the
Senate for the January meeting.


 Professor John Just asked if minor amendments could be introduced now, and who
determined what a major amendment was. The Chair replied that only editorial change
type amendments could be introduced to the Report now and said that Professor
Gesund‘s suggeston was not an editorial change.

The Chair recognized Professor Ron Atwood to speak for the Atwood/Bickel amend—
ment which would require the Senate Council to reduce the proposed University
Studies requirements to a maximum of thirty-six (36) semester hours and provide
enough flexibility in the requirements so that no program is forced to increase the
total number of credits presently required for graduation in order to satisfy
University Studies requirements. The Chair noted that this amendment was essen-
tially a motion to recommit the Report to the Senate Council and that if it passed,
there would be no point in considering other amendments until the Report reemerged
from the Council. Professor Atwood argued that the creators of the Swift Committee
Report were largely from programs which gave their students a lot of electives and
thus they could afford to be idealistic and philosophical in developing a general
studies curriculum, but that students in programs with very few elective options and
which already had 130 or more credits could not afford the luxury of an expanded
general studies program. Professor Atwood said he did not think the general studies
program should be improved at the expense of existing majors and that the emphasis
of any revision should be on quality not quantity.

The Chair recognized Dean Edgar Sagan from Education who spoke as an individual
and not for the faculty. He opposed the amendment because he liked the product the
Swift Committee produced. He said it was time the University developed an inte—
grated, meaningful general studies program. The strengthening compensated for the
credit hour expansion, he felt. He said great strides had been made in improving
teacher preparation at UK, and it is now one of the most selective majors. He
recommended that the credit hour limitation not be adopted.

Professor Robert Hemenway spoke against the amendment. His feeling was that the
amendment was basically an argument for the status quo. He felt the Atwood/Bickel
amendment would perpetuate the current smorgasboard approach to general studies. He
also noted that not all students came to UK with the same preparation and that the
proposed revision recognizes this by making the number of general studies credits
required flexible depending upon a student's preparation.

Professor Connie Bridge of Education spoke against the Atwood/Bickel amendment
and said the State Department required a minimum of forty-five (45) hours of general
studies. She said the education students would not be adversely affected by the
general studies revision.

Professor Jack Rea moved the previous question which was seconded and passed.

In Professor Atwood's rebuttal he said he did not feel their proposal would perm
petuate the status quo. He felt what the senators were being asked to approve was
the idea that bigger is better and asked to buy now and consume later. He felt a
lot of improvement could be made in the thirty-six hour block.

The amendment for the Senate Council to reshape the curriculum so that no more
than thirty—six hours of general studies courses be required failed in a voice vote.


 The second amendment was introduced by Professors Gesund and Crewe. The Chair

recognized Professor Gesund, who said what he was asking was that the senators wou1d
circumscribe the weight of the "pig" when buying a "pig in a poke," so that the
facu1ty wou1d not be at the mercy of whatever came next. He said the Co11ege of
Engineering had a variety of programs that ranged from 129 to 140 hours, and that
the revised curricu1um wou1d raise their requirements by about six (6) hours.
Hesaid the University of Louisvi11e gave a master's degree with 152 hours. He fe1t
the additiona1 time cou1d not be afforded, because engineers moving into management
not on1y needed a broader education background, but they a1so needed more technica1

Professor Rea noted that in 1965 Civi1 Engineering required 151 hours for gradu-
ation which has now been cut back to 140. E1ectrica1 Engineering has gone from 145
to 131. In his view the requirements were not being raised that much. He fe1t a
proper1y prepared student entering the University cou1d expect six to nine hours of
new courses.

Professor Gesund stated that UK was not competitive with the University of
Louisvi11e. Professor Jesse Wei1 found it hard to be1ieve that the MA students at
the University of Louisvi11e were so much more competent that they were 1earning
more in their 152 hours than UK students are 1earning. He fe1t any emp1oyer wou1d
be g1ad to hire someone at a 1ower sa1ary with the same training. Professor Just
spoke against the amendment and fe1t UK shou1d not be compared to Louisvi11e but
shou1d 100k to Georgia Tech or Ca1ifornia Tech.

Dean Ray Bowen said the fact was that in the 1ast twenty years the hour require—
ments had dropped in the C011ege of Engineering. The intention was to make the
program a four-year one as opposed to a fiveyear program. As far as the merits of
the proposa1, he did not fee1 he cou1d make a judgment because he did not know what
effect the proposa1 wou1d have on the engineering program. He said unti1 some basic
definitions were made as to what a discip1ine was, it wou1d be hard to say what
effect the cross-discip1inary requirement wou1d have on the Co11ege of Engineering
requirements. He wanted to know if the different engineering fie1ds were disci—
p1ines. Professor Louis Swift said the answer was on page 9, second paragraph of
the origina1 report. He said the fee1ing of the committee was that a discip1ine was
defined by the department. The University has a variety of courses with different
prefixes so that two cross-discip1inary courses wou1d have different prefixes. He
said the sy11abi of these courses must ref1ect joint p1anning on the part of the
participating departments so that the two courses wou1d come from two different

There was no further discussion on the Gesund/Crewe amendment to require that
the imp1ementation of the new curricu1um be modified for programs requiring 128 or
more hours for the bache1or's degree so that no additiona1 hours were required for
graduation, and the amendment fai1ed in a voice vote.

The next amendment was the Hemken/Lane amendment to deTete the 1anguage require-
ment from the University Studies Proposa1. Professor Gary Lane spoke on beha1f of
the amendment. Professors Hemken and Lane's opposition to the proposa1 was basi—
ca11y a phi1osophica1 one. Their question was, "Why was foreign 1anguage sing1ed
out in the proposa1?” He fe1t foreign 1anguage was no more important than other
things that added cu1ture to a student's program. They were opposed to every stu-
dent having to study a foreign 1anguage or meet some foreign 1anguage standard
before graduation. They did not fee1 foreign 1anguage fit into everyone's overa11


 Professor Ted Fielder raised three issues which he felt were important as far as
the foreign language requirement is concerned. They are citizenship, marketplace,
and educational reform in Kentucky schools and universities. Professor Angene
Hilson felt that whether a student was training or being educated to be a profes—
sional engineer, teacher, nurse or whatever profession, that person would have to
a world citizen. She found it ironic, when Toyota was building a plant near
Lexington, to say it was not important for students to gain some knowledge of the
world and one of those ways is through foreign language. Student Senator Robin
Lawson did not see how a foreign language could let one better understand culture °
two semesters. He said students were not going to be getting culture by learning

Vice Chancellor Donald Sands hoped the Senate would resist all efforts to weaken
the language requirement. He said it was really just a high school requirement. He
did not feel it was unreasonable to expect students to make it up in college if they
had not fulfilled the language as a high school requirement. The states of Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina have adopted a policy like this which
will be implemented in 1987. He felt this was an opportunity for the University of
Kentucky to set an example of leadership.

Professor Rea said there was something important that had not been pointed out
about languages. He said our language determined how we classify our observations
and experiences of the universe including some basic notions such as time, reality,
and accountability.

Student Senator John Fischer supported the amendment but did not feel that
foreign language should be on a level that no other course except English was on at
the University. He did not feel it was essential to require a foreign language.
Professor Martin McMahon addressed the need for foreign languages on the basis other
than a broadening culture horizon. He said the study of foreign languages was good
just because one was learning another language. He felt it would be helpful for
graduates to know a foreign language when they go into the business world, and to be
able to communicate with people who speak a different language.

Professor David Kao said the committee's intention was to prepare the student to
live in future times. He felt it was important to recognize that times are chang-
ing. He said if students do not learn a language, they are completely closing
doors. Professor Madhira Ram said he was able to speak before the Senate because he
had learned English. He said the world is shrinking and language would give stu-
dents the opportunity to widen their horizons and become better learned individuals.

Student Senator Kathlene Ashcraft was completely in favor of the foreign langu—
age requirement. She thought it was impossible to understand the political culture
of a nation if one did not understand the language, and it certainly was not going
to hurt a student.

Professor Lane in rebuttal said he had no opposition to foreign language, but he
did oppose requiring every student to take a foreign language in college. He said
if students wished to learn more about other cultures that was fine. He wanted to
know which foreign language should be recommended for the marketplace.


 The amendment to delete the foreign language requirement from the University