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.