xt7n028pgj06 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7n028pgj06/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1990-12-10 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, December 10, 1990 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 10, 1990 1990 1990-12-10 2020 true xt7n028pgj06 section xt7n028pgj06 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 10, 1990 The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, December 10, l990, in Room l15 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building. Carolyn S. Bratt, Chair of the Senate Council, presided. Members absent were: Reginald J. Alston, Barry Applegate, Jim Arnett*, Richard C. Ausness, Carl Baker, Robert S. Baker*, Mark C. Berger*, John J. Bernardo*, James D. Birchfield*, Dan A. Black*, Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth, T. Earle Bowen, Douglas Boyd, Kelly Breitenstein, David Brickeen, Joan C. Callahan, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr., Bradley C. Canon, Ben W. Carr, Edward A. Carter, James Chapman*, Michael L. Cibull*, W. Harry Clarke, Jordan L. Cohen, Christa E. Collins, Audrey L. Companion, Clifford J. Cremers*, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Bruce S. Eastwood, William H. Fortune, Michael B. Freeman, Richard W. Furst, Lester Goldstein, Brian Gullette, Marilyn C. Hamann*, J. John Harris, Zafar Hasan*, Robert E. Hemenway, Micki King Hogue, Tony Holloway, Craig L. Infanger*, John P. Jones, Edward J. Kasarskis, Kim Kells, Kenneth K. Kubota, Donald C. Leigh*, Thomas W. Lester, C. Oran Little, Sean Lohman, Jill Lowry, Bruce A. Lucas*, Martin J. McMahon, Ernest J. Middleton, John Middleton, William G. Moody, Roy L. Moore*, Robert C. Noble*, Greg 0'Connell*, Thomas M. Dlshewsky, Clayton P. 0mvig*, Jose Oubrerie, Clayton R. Paul*, Barbara Phillips, Ronald Polly, Thomas R. Pope, Deborah E. Powell*, Robert E. Rhoads, Thomas C. Robinson, Arturo A. Sandoval, Frank A. Scott*, Michael C. Shannon, Timothy Sineath*, M. Scott Smith*, Mike Sparkman, Robert H. Spedding*, David Stockman, Kumble R. Subbaswamy*, Louis J. Swift, Theodore R. Tauchert*, Michael G. Tearney*, Dennis M. TeKrony, John Thrailkill*, Ann R. Tickamyer, Michael A. Webb, Charles T. Wethington*, Ervy Whitaker, Eugene Williams, Paul A. Willis, Constance P. Wilson*, Emery A. Wilson, H. David Wilson*, Alfred D. Winer, Mary L. Witt, and Peter Wong. The Chair made the following announcements: ”One of the announcements is to remind you that tomorrow from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. is the annual Holiday Social. It will be held at the Alumni House. You should have received an announcement by now in the form of a Christmas tree. Please try to attend. Ray Betts and I have been working, along with Sean Lohman, to try to get all of the Board of Trustees to come to the social tomorrow. It is very important that the Faculty Senate is represented if we manage to round up all of the Trustees. Please come at 4:30 p.m. and plan on staying for awhile. The second announcement is really just informational to alert you about something that is going to be happening. We are going to send out requests to each of you to provide us with names of nominees for certain administrative committees that we have to nominate faculty members to such as the Academic Area Advisory Committee, etc. Also there are Senate Advisory Committees that we have to nominate people to serve on, such as Privilege and Tenure, the Faculty Code Committee and the Prior Services Committee. You will receive a letter asking you to provide those names to us. *Absence explained. Minutes, University Senate, December 10, 1990 Please be on the lookout for it, and please actually respond by sending in nominees for those various committees so that we can have committees that represent the diverse academic disciplines that this Senate embraces. Those will be coming to you and please try to respond to them. The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem (Physics and Astronomy) to make the motion on the first action item. Professor McEllistrem, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved the adoption of the recommendation to amend University Senate Rules, Section V—l.5 (Audit). The proposed change would read: "A student who initially enrolls in a class as an auditor must attend at least 80% of the classes in the course (excluding excused absences). If a student changes her or his enrollment from credit to audit, s/he must attend at least 80% of the remaining classes (excluding excused absences). If an auditor fails to attend the requisite number of classes, the instructor may request that the Dean of the instructor's college award the grade of w for that course and the Dean shall report the grade to the Registrar." A copy of the proposed change was circulated to members of the Senate under date of 31 October 1990. The Chair stated that the motion did not require a second. The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Hans Gesund (Civil Engineering) wanted to know if instructors would have to take attendance because how else would he know if auditors attended 80% of the classes. Professor McEllistrem replied that for the auditors instructors would have to be conscious of whether or not they are in class. Professor Gesund stated that he might have one hundred students and how was he to be conscious of the attendance of auditors when there might be just two or three of them in class if he did not take attendance. He added that he did not take attendance because he conceives of this being an institution for adults and not for sixth graders. Professor McEllistrem stated that the proposal implied that one is responsible for certifying that the auditor has been enrolled. Professor Gesund feels the change would institute a whole new regulation that in essence says, "Instructors must take attendance." The Chair stated that in the initial discussion on auditors which came up last year, the main concern was the definition of auditor. Her feeling is that this proposal provides a definition of auditor which the instructors can choose to enforce or not. There is nothing in the proposal that is mandatory in terms of changing anyone's own attendance policies which are set at the beginning of the semester when an instructor tells the class what the expectations are. The Chair went on to say that if anyone objected so strongly at the April 23, 1990, meeting who had a problem of not knowing who an auditor was and what was expected of an auditor, there is now a working definition to be employed. Professor McEllistrem pointed out that an instructor may request that the Dean of the instructor's college award a grade of a w. There was no further discussion. The motion to adopt the proposed change in the audit rule passed and reads as follows: Proposal: [add underlined section] V 1.5 Audit Any change from audit to credit or credit to audit by a student regularly enrolled in a college must be accomplished by the Minutes, University Senate, December 10, 1990 last date to drop a course without a grade in any given term. No credit can be given for a class audited nor is a student permitted to take an examination for credit. A student who initially enrolls in a class as an auditor must attend at least 80% of the classes in the course (excluding excused absences). If a student changes her or his enrollment from credit to audit, s/he must attend at least 80% of the remaining classes (excluding excused absences). If an auditor fails to attend the requisite number of classes, the instructor may request that the Dean of the instructors‘s college award the grade of N for that course and the Dean shall report the grade to the Registrar. No instructor is authorized to admit anyone as an auditor to any of his/her classes unless the auditor has registered as such. Background and Rationale: In the spring semester, 1990, the Senate‘s Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards recommended to the Senate Council an amendment to the Audit rule to enable certain students who cannot drop a course (international and other students who must maintain full time student status to retain financial aid; students whose parents carry them on various insurance plans which stipulate a requirement for full-time status) to change from credit to audit on a date later in the semester than is currently permitted. The proposal was sent to the Senate floor on April 23, 1990, without the Senate Council’s recommendation. Discussion on the proposed amendment at the Senate meeting focused on the lack of a clear definition of the expectations of an auditor. The current definition of Auditor only implies participation in class. However, what happens when a student changes her or his status from credit to audit is that the student essentially withdraws from class. The proposed amendment was defeated with the stipulation that a review of the definition of Audit be conducted and revisions to clarify the role of the student auditor be brought before the Senate at a later date. The proposal before the Senate is in response to that directive. The proposal has been reviewed by the Senate Council and is recommended for adoption. Implementation Date: Spring, 199l NOTE: This proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification. The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem for the second action item. Professor McEllistrem, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section IV-2.l.2 (b), Admission to Advanced Standing. The proposed change was circulated to members of the Senate under date of 28 November l990. Minutes, University Senate, December 10, l99O The Chair stated that the motion did not require a second. The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Hans Gesund wanted to know what happens to a student who takes the junior year abroad. He also wanted to know if that student would have to take a special examination in every course she or he took abroad in order to get credit for that course in their present curriculum which seems harsh to him. He went on to say that in the background information it states, "Although foreign institutions are not, of course, accredited by one of the six regional accrediting associations, students from foreign institutions do not come under this section but are handled separately by the Admissions Office." He wanted to know what section of the Senate Rules does this come under, if any, and if they don't come under a separate section of the Senate Rules, by what right does the Admissions Office have to handle credit from foreign institutions? Dr. Joseph Fink (Director of Admissions) did not know the answers to the questions. Professor Gesund suggested tabling the proposal until there are answers to his questions. He did not want to vote on something not knowing what the effects would be. Professor Gesund moved to table until the February meeting. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion on the motion. The motion to table unanimously passed. The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem for the third action item. Professor McEllistrem, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved adoption of the change to amend University Senate Rules, Section IV, Admissions Standards for M. S. Radiation Science. The proposal was circulated to members of the Senate under date of 27 November l990. The motion did not require a second. The floor was opened for discussion. There was no discussion. The proposal unanimously passed and reads as follows: Section IV Proposed admissions standards: M.S. Radiation Science Change the current requirement from an "appropriate baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution" to "a physical science or engineering baccalaureate degree, or equivalent, (preferably in physics or with the equivalent of at least a minor in physics) from an accredited institution..."; Current: Must have an appropriate baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution Proposed: Should have a physical science or engineering baccalaureate degree, or equivalent (preferably in physics or with the equivalent of at least a minor in physics), which must be from an accredited institution. Rationale: The level at which medical and health physics is taught requires a reasonably strong background in physics for the best success. At the same time, however, the department does not want to totally discourage strong, well-motivated students from related disciplines. Minutes, University Senate, December 10, l990 PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM IN RADIATION SCIENCE: Prerequisites for the program should include a physical science or engineering baccalaureate degree (preferably in physics or with the equivalent of at least a minor in physics) which must be from an accredited institution, physics through modern physics (with atomic and nuclear laboratory), one year of general chemistry, two semesters of undergraduate biology, mathematics through differential equations, and one-semester courses in computer science, statistics, human physiology, and human anatomy. Students lacking certain course prerequisites may be admitted while completing them, if so approved by the Director of Graduate Studies. Prospective students should have an overall grade point average of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale, plus meet the normal requirements of the Graduate School, including submission of scores on the verbal and quantitative portions of the Graduate Record Examination. ***** The recommendation to establish separate admissions standards for the M.S. in Radiation Science has been reviewed by the Graduate Council, the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards and the Senate Council and is recommended to the Senate. Implementation Date: Fall, l99l Note: This proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for codification. The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem for the fourth agenda item. Professor McEllistrem, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved the proposal recommending to the President a name change in the College of Home Economics to the College of Human Environmental Sciences. The proposal was circulated to members of the Senate under date of 29 November 1990. The motion did not require a second. The Chair recognized Dean Peggy Meszaros (Home Economics) to speak to the issue. Dean Meszaros presented information to the Senate to amplify what the Senators had on the agenda item that was circulated renaming the College of Home Economics. She stated that college faculty has worked for several years in a very deliberate fashion to determine what the proper name of the college should be. There were surveys done of alumni, faculty, students, and a national survey to look at what the trends in our nation are in terms of landgrant universities renaming their colleges. Sixty—one percent have renamed their colleges and about twenty-five additional percent are in Minutes, University Senate, December 10, 1990 process. The names being selected are primarily Human Ecology and Human Environmental Sciences. She indicated that the faculty in the College of Home Economics determined that Human Environmental Sciences is the most appropriate name for their college. They went back to some of the earlier records of home economics professionals. Dean Meszaros noted that the acknowledged leader for the profession, Ellen Swallow Richards, the first female graduate of MIT is the person who is credited in two biographies. Dean Meszaros shared with the Senate the following from the book titled, Ellen Swallow, that recognizes her as the woman who founded ecology. "Ellen Swallow, who one day would launch environmental science, was a frail and spindling child at six. Her early work looking at the relationship of human beings in their near environment launched the profession of home economics which she called environmental science." In a second biography, Dean Meszaros quoted, "Ellen H. Richards believed and taught that environmental science was a necessary part of every day living." She went on to say that these were two of the primary works that the faculty looked at in determining what their appropriate name should be. The faculty has studied the issue carefully, they believe that environmental sciences best describes what the college is about today as they study human beings which is the focus of every program in the college which includes food, clothing, shelter and relationships. The very special contribution that the college's graduates make as they move out into careers in the real world is being able to understand human beings and the near environment factors that influence the lives of those human beings. The name Human Environmental Sciences accurately describes the mission of the college which is to improve the lives of individuals and families. The Chair recognized Professor Hans Gesund. Professor Gesund read the definition of environment from the third unabridged Webster's dictionary. He also read a letter from the College of Engineering Undergraduate Council on the same subject. The Engineering Undergraduate Council discussed the proposed name change to Human Environmental Sciences and feels it is a much too inclusive title considering the commonly accepted meaning of environmental science. Professor Gesund noted that the College of Home Economics consists of three departments: Family Studies which has nothing to do with the real environ— ment, Human Environment: Design and Textiles which is near environment but has nothing to do with science; and the Department of Nutrition and Food Science which is definitely a science department in the biological sciences, but it has nothing to do with the environment. He went on to say that this is not an environmental science program. He added that given the dictionary definition of environment and given the fact that there are many environmental science departments on the campus, he does not feel the name is justified. As far as he can tell from the Bulletin, none of the curricula required in any of the advanced mathematics 15 required in the College of Home Economics nor is advanced physics required. His biggest worry about the change is that environmental science and doing things about the environment is a very mock topic. He was in favor of voting against the proposal. Dean Meszaros responded to some of Professor Gesund's points. She stated that the second definition from Webster‘s dictionary does describe very accurately what the college does. Many of their programs do require science. She pointed out the food science major which does require calculus. The college believes as faculty, students and alumni that environmental sciences Minutes, University Senate, December 10, 1990 does accurately reflect who and what they are. She went on to say that no academic unit is known only by its name, but for truth in advertising they would also display the specialized programs in their college just as they currently do. She added that the faculty, staff, students and alumni would not agree with Professor Gesund. Professor JoAnn Rogers (Library Science) wanted to know what some of the other colleges adopted as new names. Dean Meszaros stated that the two names most frequently chosen are Human Ecology and Human Environmental Sciences. Question was moved. The proposal to change the name of the College of Home Economics to the College of Human Environmental Sciences passed and reads as follows: Proposal: lo change the name of the College of Home Economics to the College of Human Environmental Sciences. Background and Rationale: Faculty in the College of Home Economics proposes renaming the College of Home Economics to the College of Human Environmental Sciences. This proposal is in keeping with the progress of other forward-looking research institutions throughout the nation. The proposed change should not be construed as a rejection of Home Economics but as one which will preserve the conceptual base on which the field was developed while, over time, freeing the College from the impediment of the stereotype associated with the present name. Moreover, the proposed name reflects the human ecological perspective that characterizes the research and instructional efforts within the College. The primary purpose of an administrative name is to accurately reflect the programs of a unit and project an image congruent with the goals and mission of the College and the University. The name change reflects an active rather than reactive orientation. Renaming the College draws attention to the unit, and provides an opportunity to explain its function and highlight its unique contributions to teaching, research, and service. Finally, renaming demonstrates the ability to adapt to changing College, University, and societal roles, norms, and expectations. When the field of Home Economics in higher education first developed, the common definition was "a science that applied knowledge to improve the home". The first program at the University of Kentucky was called Domestic Sciences. This early identification with the improvement of the home remains today but has expanded to include other settings as well. Years later, the American Home Economics Association defined Home Economics as a field whose mission was to help families function and to help consumers effectively manage their resources. In tandem with that mission, Minutes, University Senate, December 10, l990 most Home Economics units emphasized programs with career goals in secondary education, Home Economics Extension, and homemaking. Today less than three percent of the students nationally and three percent at UK are pursuing these majors. The balance of the students are enrolled in programs such as Dietetics, Food Science, Restaurant Management, Interior Design, Merchandising, Apparel and Textiles, Textile Science, Applied Child Development, Family Studies, and Family Resource Management. These fields are directly tied to subject—matter disciplines and lead to professional careers in the business community and corporate world, quite different from the education-oriented and household-focused careers of the past. In short, only three percent of the College's activities are now identified as "traditional Home Economics“, i.e., Home Economics Education. Given these changes, the faculty strongly agreed that it was appropriate for the College to consider the question of the name of the College itself. In May, 1987, 67% of the faculty voted to rename the College of Home Economics to Human Environmental Sciences. The name Home Economics no longer accurately describes or represents‘the purpose or mission of the College. The faculty identified the commonalities inherent in the programs of the representative departments. These are: science-based programs dealing with human beings in their environmental context with particular reference to the interaction between human beings and their various environs. Thus, the name Human Environmental Sciences most aptly and accurately describes what is being done in the College and better represents the College to the academic community as well as to the public at large. Note: The proposal has been reviewed by the Senate Committee on Kcademic Organization and Structure and the Senate Council, both of which recommend approval. The proposal will be recommended to the Administration. There being no further business to come before the Senate, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. Ra all M. Dahl, Secretary University Senate LHMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 28 November 1990 Members, University Senate University Senate Council AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, December 10, 1990. Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section IV - 2.1.2 (b), Admission to Advanced Standing. Proposal: ( Delete highlighted, bracketed portion) 2.1.2 Admission to Advanced Standing (60 Admission of University of Kentucky Community College Students: Grades, credits, quality points and academic status from courses taken in the University of Kentucky Community College shall be transferred 'when the Community" College student enrolls in the University System. The applicability of any given courses not offered in the University System, towards a University degree shall be determined. by the Dean of the College in which the student enrolls. Admission of All Other Students: Applicants for admission must present evidence that they are in good standing in every respect in the institution they" last attended. At no time shall college or university records be disregarded to admit an applicant solely on the basis of his/her high school records. Credit hours for courses accepted from a junior college, or other two year colleges or branches, shall be limited to a maximum of 67 semester hours. Applicants must have maintained a grade point average of 2.0 or an average of C in all previous course work. (US:12/13/82) All collegiate level work taken at a fully accredited college or university is recognized credit hour for credit hour except that the dean of a college may require validation by appropriate means of course equivalencies or applicability toward degree requirements for more specialized courses. In order to be classified as fully accredited, a college or university must be a member of one of the six regional accrediting associations, such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Advanced standing from an unaccredited college or university may be obtained by special subject examinations [or by validation under conditions set forth by the Director of Admissions and the Dean of the College in which the student will enroll]. The applicability of the transfer work towani a University degree shall be determined by the- Dean. of the College in which the student enrolls. (US: 12/13/82) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY Page 2 US Agenda Item: IV - 2.1.2 (b) 28 November 1990 Background and Rationale: At present, the University's practice of validating transfer credit from a non—accredited institution is based upon the student's performance at UK. The working arrangement is that students are allowed to count credits if they earn a 2.0 or better gpa in the first 24 hours of course work at UK. Thus, if a student does well at UK in advanced level classes, it is assumed that the credits earned at a non-accredited institution. are valid. The policy permits the student's performance at UK to validate another institution's records. Consequently, UK Admissions could refuse to validate one of two identical records from an institution on the basis of varying student performance at UK. (The policy also assumes that the student's performance level here at UK is comparable to the performance level at the previous institution.) The proposal to eliminate the phrase "...or by validation under conditions set forth by the Director of Admissions and the Dean of the College in, which the student will enroll" was suggested at the associate dean level with the following comment: "With the current availability of CLEP exams, competency (by—pass) exams, equivalency credit, etc., it appears that there are means by which students could acquire credit for competency acquired at non—accredited institutions." Insisting that students from non—accredited colleges get credit only by special exam would also take care of the practical difficulty of having courses that may or may not count-a situation which makes advising very difficult. Although foreign institutions are not, of course, accredited by one of the six regional accrediting associations, students from foreign institutions do not come under this section but are handled separately by the Admissions _Office. The proposal was reviewed by the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards and recommended to the University Senate Council. Implementation Date: Fall, 1991 Note: This proposal was considered by the Senate in the Spring Semester, 1990 and referred back to Committee for further review. The principal concern expressed in the discussion on the floor of the Senate was the potentially adverse impact on international students applying for transfer and on domenstic students who have been (or may seek to be) involved in study abroad programs.