xt7n8p5vb605 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7n8p5vb605/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1987-02-09  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, February 9, 1987 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 9, 1987 1987 1987-02-09 2020 true xt7n8p5vb605 section xt7n8p5vb605 UNIVERSITY SENATE






Members, University Senate

The Uniyersity Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
February 9, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 CON/HSLC Building.

Minutes of 10 November and 8 December 1986.
Chairman's remarks and announcements.

Honorary Degrees

Action Item:

a. Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V—2.4.1
Attendance in Class and 2.4.2 Excused Absences. (Circulated
under date of 16 January 1987.)


Pr0posed addition to University Senate Rules, Section VII—
6.0 Faculty Code, to extend certain rights to the complainant
in sexual harassment cases. (Circulated under date of 19
January 1987.)


Randall Dahl




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
February 9, l987, in Room ll5 of the College of Nursing/Health Sciences

Wilbur w. Frye, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Curtis M. Absher, Robert A. Altenkirch*, Roger B.
Anderson*, Richard Angelo, Michael A. Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, Raymond F.
Betts, Dibaker Bhattacharyya*, Frank J. Bickel, Ronn Borgmeier, Charlie Boyd,
Jeffery A. Born, Peter P. Bosomworth, Joe Burch, Richard R. Clayton*, Leo
Demski, Richard Domek*, Robert Lewis Donohew*, Anthony Eardley, Stanley
Feldman, Gerald Ferretti, Daniel Fulks, Richard w. Furst, Thomas C. Gray,
Marilyn D. Hamann*, Lawrence A. Harris*, Zafar Hasan, Raymond R. Hornback,
Jennifer Jacquet, John J. Just, Joseph Krislov, Robert G. Lawson, Edgar D.
Maddox, Paul Mandelstam*, Patrick J. McNamara, Peggy Meszaros, Robert Murphy,
Arthur J. Nonneman, Philip C. Palmgreen*, David J. Prior, Peter Purdue, G.
Kendell Rice, Christy Robinson, Thomas C. Robinson, Jo Ann Rogers, Thomas L.
Roszman, Edgar L. Sagan, Timothy Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, Carol B.
Stelling, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Michael G. Tearney*, Sheree Thompson, Thomas
L. Travis, Marc J. Wallace, Jesse Neil*, James Hells, Charles T. Nethington,
Carolyn Nilliams*, Paul A. Willis, Constance P. Wilson, Peter Ninograd*, and
Judy Wiza.

The Minutes of the meetings of November 10, T986, and December 8, 1986,
were approved as submitted.

Chairman Frye recognized Professor Andrew J. Hiatt, Department of
Agronomy, who read the following Memorial Resolution on Ira Evan Massie.

Ira Evan Massie

Ira Evan Massie, retired Agronomy Extension
Specialist, died January 6, 1987. He was 67.

A native of Scott County, Kentucky, he received his
3.5. and M.S. degrees from the University of Kentucky. He
began his career with the College of Agriculture Certified
Seed Program in l953, after which he worked in Agronomy
Extension until his retirement on June 30, l983.

Mr. Massie's contributions to the College of
Agriculture's tobacco extension program included dissemi-
nation of research information to the tobacco growers
through the use of field trials and demonstrations, _
meetings with growers and other individuals interested in
the production of tobacco, and use of mass media such as
radio, television and printed publications. He was a
pioneer in the use of mass media for tobacco extension,
having a weekly program on NKYT—TV known as ”Tobacco Talk"

*Absence explained


 for approximately twenty-five years. He also made exten—
sive use of weekly radio broadcasts on several stations.
After his retirement from the University, he continued his
weekly television programs on HKYT—TV until approximately
two months before his death. These programs covered many
areas of agriculture as well as tobacco.

Mr. Massie served on several tobacco related commit-
tees throughout his career including the Industry Sales
Committee, Kentucky Farm Bureau Tobacco Committee, Council
for Burley Tobacco, Burley Farmer's Advisory Council and
‘the Governor's Commission on Agriculture. He was also a
consultant to the Tobacco Institute in Washington, D. C.
and to corporations involved with tobacco, for which he
traveled world—wide.

Mr. Massie served his country in World War II with the
United States Marine Corps Air Force for six and one—half
years as an aerial photographer in a long—range reconnais-
sance squadron in the South Pacific. He was awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with several
Oak Leaf Clusters for his efforts in World War IL

Memberships in agriculture honorary societies include
Gamma Sigma Delta and Epsilon Sigma Phi. He received the
Meritorious Service Award from the Epsilon Sigma Phi

Other awards he received during his career are the
Certificate of Service to Agriculture from the Kentucky
Department of Agriculture and he was appointed a Kentucky
Colonel by two Governors of Kentucky.

Mr. Massie was a member of Calvary Baptist Church in
Lexington, serving as Superintendent of Sunday School for
several years and as a member of many other committees in
his church.

Professor Hiatt requested that the resolution be entered into these
minutes and that a copy be sent to Mrs. Massie.

Chairman Frye recognized Professor Hubert Martin, Jr., Department of
Classics, who read the following memorial resolution on Lawrence S. Thompson,
Professor of Classics.


Lawrence S. Thompson

On April l9, l986, Lawrence S. Thompson, Professor of
Classics at the University of Kentucky and Honorary Member
of the Council of the Bibliographical Society of America,
died unexpectedly in his sixty-ninth year, still in the


 midst of an amazingly varied and productive career as
scholar, teacher, and humanist. An inaugural member of the
University's present Department of Classical Languages and
Literatures when it was established in 1970, he had previ—
ously served the University for eighteen years (l948—l966)
as its Director of Libraries and was, in addition to being
a librarian and a classicist, also a Germanist, a
Scandinavian scholar, a bibliographer, an editor, and a
publisher. Until the day before his death, he was ener-
getically engaged in activities associated with virtually
every area of his professional knowledge and academic

Professor Thompson came to the University of Kentucky
in l948 as its Director of Libraries. He brought with him
an educational and professional record that included an
A.B. and Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, an
intervening M.A. from the University of Chicago, an
A.B.L.S. from the University of Michigan, and experience as
a librarian at Iowa State College and as head librarian at
Western Michigan College. His career as a librarian was
temporarily interrupted during the war years by a period of
service as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, with assignments in New York City and Latin
America. The range of his academic and personal interests
is reflected in the diverse list of professional and
antiquarian societies in which he maintained an active
membership. This list includes, among many such organiza-
tions, the Filson Club, the Kentucky Folklore Society (of
which he was President in l965), the Grolier Club, the
Association Internationale de Bibliophilie, the South—
eastern Library Association, the Bibliographical Society of
America, the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian
Studies, and the Classical Association of the Middle West
and South. Both the Southeastern Library Association and
the Council of the Bibliographical Society recognized his
scholarly achievements and professional services by
awarding him an honorary membership.

In the citation announcing the latter award, it was
Professor Thompson's distinguished performance as book—
review editor for the Bibliographical Society's Papers that
was selected for special commendation. He was also the
editor of innumerable bibliographic compilations, among
which are the multi-volume New Sabin and such varied titles
as, for example, Bibliographyrbf French Revolutionary
Pamphlets and Bibliography of Classical Dissertations in
Germany, 1947—1972. But Lawrence Thompson the scholar‘was
far more than only an editor and a bibliographer, as signi-
ficant as his accomplishments in these areas were; for he
wrote much, and he did it with ease and grace. In the pro—
cess, he established himself as an international authority
in the areas of the making of the book and the transmission
and preservation of the written word. To cite an out-
standing example of his scholarship, the vast series of





 articles, many of them quite long, which he has published
in recent years in the Encylopedia of Library and
Information Science constitutes a mEHUment of humane
learning. For many years to come, these articles will be
read and consulted -— and will long remain a point of pri-
mary and major reference for anyone seriously interested in
the history of printing or the history of libraries.


Professor Martin requested that this resolution be entered into the
minutes of the University Senate and that copies be sent to Professor
Thompson's children.

The Senate stood for a moment of silent tribute.
Chairman Wilbur Frye made the following announcements and remarks:

"The results of the first ballot for the Board of
Trustees election are in. The three nominees with the
highest number of votes were Mary Sue Coleman, Biochemistry
with 164 votes; Ward Crowe, Veterinary Science, 237 votes;
and Marcus McEllistrem, Physics, 142 votes. A second ballot
will be prepared soon and sent out for your voting on these
three candidates.

Connie Wilson, the retiring Board of Trustee member,
will present her Trustee report at the next Senate Meeting
on March 9.

April 16 is the date selected to honor President
Singletary on his retirement. Please mark your calendar for
that afternoon. Tentative plans include dedication of the
Center for the Arts, a brief Convocation, a reception and
perhaps other activities that have not been planned yet.
Also, to honor President Singletary on his retirement, Brad
Canon will write a Senate Resolution which will be embossed
in a plaque and presented to President Singletary at a
future Senate meeting.

The Presidential Search Committee is meeting often now
and is into an intensive phase of the search. We seem to be
making splendid progress.”

The Chair recognized Professor Donald Leigh (Engineering Mechanics),
Chairman of the Committee on Honorary Degrees, for the presentation of the
honorary degree candidates. Chairman Frye reminded the Senate that the names
were to be kept confidential until they had been approved by the Board of
Trustees. Following Professor Leigh's presentation, the Senators unanimously
approved the acceptance of the four (4) candidates for recommendation to the

The Chair recognized Professor William Lyons, Chair-elect of the Senate
Council. Professor Lyons, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of
the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V—2.4.l and 2.4.2

Attendance in Class and Excused Absences. Professor Lyons said the policy was
hot—Une—aimed‘at—FeguiremEfitsTT'WHEWTfHE'Senate made the policy for excused



 absences, there was confusion over what the rule meant. He said some instruc—
tors used attendance in calculating grades. He said the proposed rule was not
designed to suggest that instructors use attendance in their grading policy.
The policy states, ”If attendance is required or serves as a criterion for a
grade in a course, a student shall have the right to petition for a “N” if he
or she has excused absences in excess of one—fifth of the class contact hours
for that course." The proposal was circulated to members of the Senate on
January 16, l987.

The Chair said the proposal needed no second since it came from the Senate
Council. The floor was opened for discussion of the motion.

Chairman Frye recognized Student Senator Cyndi Weaver who offered an
amendment to the proposed change. The amendment would delete the words
"attendance in class” in the second paragraph. The following would be

"participation in class activities, absences at announced
or unannounced examinations"

"No instructor shall adopt a policy imposing a reduction in
grade on the basis of class attendance.”

On page 2, she said that ”attendance” should be changed to ”participation."

The amendment was seconded. Chairman Frye recognized Vice Chancellor
Donald Sands. Dr. Sands felt the proposed amendment was going in the wrong
direction than where the University should be going. The Southern Association
is moving toward requiring stiffer measures of achievement. He said the
academic reputation of the University is being improved. Meanwhile,
twenty—five percent of the freshman class does not return. Capable students
are failing classes. He encouraged faculty to take attendance, especially in
lOO level courses, and to abolish the myth that it does not matter if one goes
to class. In response Student Senator Cyndi Heaver said it was difficult for
her to see that for a student to sit in his/her seat and be graded would
upgrade the academic standards of the University. She felt there were two
reasons that a student would go to class. First, if the student wanted to
participate in the activities going on in the class or secondly, the lecture
is valuable to the student. Her argument was that a valuable lecture had a
built in part of the student's grade already. She felt to penalize a student
on the basis of whether or not he/she is sitting in a chair is a very poor

Professor Hans Gesund (Civil Engineering) agreed and said he did not have
an attendance policy. However, he was sick and tired of everybody infringing
on the prerogative of the instructor to decide policies for his/her own
classes. He said the instructors should run a class the way that instructor
sees fit. He did not feel that ll99 faculty members should be put in a
straitjacket because there may be one poor one. He felt it was very much a
matter of academic freedom. He was against making any more rules about
conduct in classes.

Student Senator John Menkhaus from the College of Fine Arts said the

amendment was not to remove any power from the faculty, but it was to increase
the academic quality of the classroom. He wanted students to partic1pate 1n


 class more. He said facts and figures should not be taught as much as the
process in which to gain those facts and figures. He said he had problems
when a professor read the textbook and there was no discussion.

Professor William Lyons (Political Science) asked for clarification on
2.4.2 Excused Absences and wanted to know if that section was to be deleted.
Student Senator Weaver said 2.4.2 referred to all excused absences. Professor
Lyons said if no instructor under any condition could ever base a grade on
attendance then another section cannot state that attendance is required and
serves as a criterion for a grade in a course.

Professor Ronald Atwood (Curriculum and Instruction) said if all the
courses at the University were dull, uninteresting and faculty read to
'students from a book, then the recommended policy would be necessary, but he
did not believe that was true. He said there were courses that had practical
experiences in them. He liked the notion of having students involved in
class. He did not understand how students could participate if they were not
in class.

Professor Michael Cibull (Pathology) did not see how a professor reading
from the textbook had anything to do with the proposed amendment to the rule
which applied strictly to attendance. He did not feel that problem in educa— .
tion could be answered by amending just one rule. He endorsed the point about
leaving it to the prerogative of the instructor to make decisions on whether
or not class attendance is required.

Professor James Kemp (Animal Sciences) said in the College of Agriculture
many of the classes were hands—0n classes and most of the teaching was done in
small groups in laboratory style. There is no way to participate if a student
does not attend. Therefore, he felt the proposed amendment had no place in
the proposed policy on attendance. Student Senator Weaver said a student
could not participate by not attending class, but a student could be forced to
attend a class that had no participatory requirement. She added that the
point was that an instructor could grade on participation. Obviously a
student must attend to participate. Ms. Weaver read a letter from a student
which stated the problems that some students have in trying to attend class,
work, take care of a home, etc. The letter stated, ”To be double penalized by
a strict attendance law would seriously harm students in those situations."
Ms. Weaver said that she was not asking faculty to reduce their academic
standards but to take into consideration faculty that do not have that high of
an academic standard. She did not want faculty to use an attendance require—
ment as a crutch.

Professor Allan Butterfield (Chemistry) spoke in support of Professor
Sands' remarks. It seemed to him the genesis of the argument is that in some
isolated cases there may be those who are not doing their best job in present—
ing material to the students. He felt those should be handled on a
case—by-case basis. He added, ”To tie our hands by this rather rigid policy
seems absolutely incorrect.“ Some classes at the University have to be huge.
It would be impossible to have participation every day in those classes. He
felt that the University is trying to retain the students from the freshman
year and to do that students simply have to attend classes, especially physics
and chemistry and the other sciences.


 Professor Paul Eakin (Mathematics) was confused about what participation
is. He said in some classes homework was due every day. If a student did not
attend class, he/she would lose credit for that day's homework. He wanted to
know if that was participation. Student Senator Weaver said if the instruc-
tor's policy was that a student must come to class to hand in homework, that
was not disallowed in the amendment. She said participation was class
activity. Professor Eakin said coming to class was a responsibility and a
collective enterprise. He said it was information flowing from one partici—
pator to another.

Professor Alan Perreiah (Philosophy) also felt there was a problem with
what participation means. It seemed to him that it should either mean the
same thing as attendance in which case the amendment was irrelevant and should
be defeated or it means something different. He said many students partici-
pated in class by proxy. They simply send someone to the lecture. He said
that could be called participation and the only way to put a stop to that was
to have education where there is a personal commitment. He said one of the
most important things that goes on in education is overhearing what other
students are saying. He felt much was lost when students were not in class.
He was oppposed to the amendment.

Professor Lisa Barclay (Family Studies) felt the meaning of participation
in the amendment was extremely vague. She did have a class requirement
whereby a portion of the grade would be determined by participation. Students
did not think that was fair so she changed the requirement to class atten-
dance. She takes off for a certain number of unexcused absences. She said
she was now being asked to go back the other way.

Student Senator Jody Hanks (Business and Economics) pointed out what the
amendment was saying is that it is the students' responsibility to make sure
that they come to class. If a student misses class, he/she would be the one
to suffer. He felt a participation policy would encourage students to attend
class. What the students wanted to get away from was forcing class atten—
dance. He said students should be treated as adults.

Professor Constance Wood moved the previous question. Motion was seconded
and passed unanimously. The amendment failed in a voice vote.

In discussion on the original motion Professor Carolyn Bratt (College of
Law) questioned the last statement in 2.4.2 which stated, ” If attendance is
required or serves as a criterion for a grade in a course, a student shall
have the right to petition for a "W” if he/she has excused absences in excess
of one—fifth of the class contact hours for that course.” She wanted to know
why the student had to go through a formal procedure if he/she has complied
with the excused absence policy and notifid the professor ahead of time.
Professor William Lyons (Political Science) said the only excused absences the
instructors know about upfront pertained to religious holidays. It is con-
ceivable that a student would hit the one-fifth contact hour point sometime
after the formal drop period. A student could later in the semester petition
to his/her dean for a withdrawal for an extraordinary reason.

Professor Gesund had trouble understanding the need for the rule because
if a student had been ill, had a series of deaths in the family? going on
trips——physical or metaphysical nature——or have a religious holiday every


 Tuesday, that student can petition for a "W" in any case under the present
rules. He did not feel there should be a need for the additional proposal.
He had trouble with the instructor having to let the student have a fifth of
all contact hours off for excused absences before anything can be done. He
felt one—tenth was already generous. He said classes should come first,
therefore he was against the proposal.

Student Senator Lisa Corum (Communications) said that what the proposal
was trying to clarify was many students had trouble coming to the one—tenth
time in the previous rule. She added there are times when working students
simply cannot attend class, and there are students who work to put themselves
through school. She felt that the one-fifth class participation was good and
should be passed. Student Senator Weaver said it was entirely possible that
because of excused absences a student might suffer when those absences reached
close to one-fifth. A student would suffer on the exams due to not being in
class. She said that would be double penalizing a student.

Professor Gesund had no problem with giving students a break except in
those courses of a laboratory nature. If a student is absent, the work of the
group to which he/she is assigned is severely handicapped. He said there had
to be some pressure on the students so that they would come to class regu-
larly. Student Senator Neaver said if students had excused absences they were
not in class because they could not be there. She said instructors could dock
those students all they want, but that will not make the students be in class.

There was no further discussion on the motion which passed in a voice
vote. The proposed change as submitted by the Senate Council follows:

Note: Underlined portion is new; delete bracketed portion.

V. 2.4.l Attendance and Completion of Assignments
For each course in which the student is enrolled, the
student shall be expected to carry out all required
work including laboratories and studios, and to take
all examinations at the class period designated by the


Each instructor shall determine his/her policy
regarding completion of assigned work, attendance in
class, absences at announced or unannounced
examinations, and excused absences in excess of
one-[tenth] fifth of class contact hours (see Rule
V-2.4.2 belowi. This policy shall be presented in
writing to each class at its first or second meeting.
Students' failure to comply [complete assignments,
attend class, or be present for examinations in
accordance] with the announced policyjies] may result
in appropriate reductions in grade as determined by the
instructor [except in the case of excused absences].

(US: ll/ll/855

2.4.2 Excused Absences: (US: ll/ll/85)
he following are defined as excused absences:


 Iiiness of the student or serious iTTness of a
member of the student's immediate famiTy. The
instructor shaIT have the right to request
appropriate verification.

The death of a member of the student's immediate
famin. The instructor shaTT have the right to
request appropriate verification.

Trips for members of student organizations
sponsored by an academic unit, trips for University
ciasses, and trips for participation in
intercoITegiate athietic events. When feasibie,
the student must notify the instructor PRIOR TO the
occurrence of such absences, but in no case shaTT
such notification occur more than one week after
the absence. Instructors may request formai
notification from appropriate university personnei
to document the student's participation in such

Major ReTigious HoTidays. Students are responsibie
for notifying the instructor IN WRITING of
anticipated absences due to their observance of
such hoiidays no Tater than the Tast day for adding
a ciass.

Students missing work due to an excused absence bear
the responsibiTity of informing the instructor about
their excused absence within one week foTIowing the
period of the excused absence (except where prior
notification is required), and of making up the missed
work. The instructor shaTI, if feasibTe, give the
student an opportunity to make up the work missed
during the semester in which the absence occurred, if
feasibTe. The student shaTT be given the opportunity
to make up exams missed due to an excused absence
during the semester in which the absence occurred, if
feasibie. In those instances where the nature of the
course is such that cTassroom participation by the
student is essentiai for evaiuation, the instructor
shaTI, if feasibie, give the student an opportunity to
make up the work missed during the semester in which
the absence occurred.

Elf, in the opinion of the instructor, excused absences
in excess of one-tenth of the ciass contact hours or
the timing of excused absences prevents the student
from satisfactoriTy compTeting work for the course, the
instructor shaii counseT the student about the options
of an I grade or withdrawai from the course for that
semester.] If attendance is required or serves as a
criterion for a grade in a course, a student shall have
the right to petition for a "W" 1T he or she has




 excused absences in excess of one—fifth of the c1ass
contact hours fbr that course.



Background and Rationa1e:

The current absence poiicy was adopted by the University Senate
on 11 November 1985, but some probIems have arisen f0110wing
impIementation of the ru1e in the Spring Semester, 1986. The
Senate CounciI asked the ad hoc Student Affairs Committee,
chaired by Professor Mich551_§?ooks, to examine the ”troubie
spots" of the ruIe and report to the Senate Counci]. That
report was presented on 4 December 1986. At that meeting the
Senate CounciI voted to recommend the above proposed revisions
of the ru1e.


Section V — 2.4.1 as proposed wi11 require each instructor to
inform the c1ass at its first or second meeting what his/her
poIicy is regarding comp1etion of assigned work, attendance in
c1ass, absences at announced or unannounced examinations, and
excused absences in excess of the one-fifth of c1ass contact
hours. Furthermore, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 wi11 be inapp1icab1e
un1ess the instructor informs the c1ass in writing of his/her
p01icy in this regard at the first or second c1ass meeting. In
accordance with announced poIicies, the instructor may
appropriateiy reduce a student's grade on account of any of the
above, inc1uding excused absences.

Thus, the major effect of this proposal, if adopted, wi11 be to
a11ow instructors to 1imit the number of excused absences,
which cannot be done now, to one—fifth of the c1ass contact
hours. However, the instructor is ob1iged to a11ow the student
who is over the 1imit on excused absences to petition for a w

Impiementation Date: Fa11 Semester, 1987

NOTE: The change wi11 be forwarded to the Ru1es Committee for

Chairman Frye recognized Professor Wi11iam Lyons for the second action
item on the agenda. 0n beha1f of the Senate Counci1, Professor Lyons moved
approva1 of the proposed addition to University Senate Ru1es, Section VII -
6.0, Facu1ty Code. He said the proposa1 gave those fi1ing a compIaint in good
faith the same procedura] and substantive rights present1y guaranteed the
accused. This proposed addtion was circu1ated to members of the Senate on
January 19, 1987.


The motion required no second, and the f1oor was opened for discus-
sion. There was no discussion and the motion, which passed unanimoust, reads
as foIIows:

Proposed Addition:

VII 6.0 a. In a11 proceedings under this Code, a comp1ainant
"— has the right:



 to be heard as to her or his complaint;
to receive a copy of any responses from the accused
to the complainant's charges;
3. not to be penalized academically or professionally
__ for filing or processing a complaint in good faith
under this code.





With regard to all proceedings of the Committee, the
complainant has the right:



l. to receive a copy of all rules and procedures

_-' governing the actions of the Committee in
sufficient time to familiarize herself or himself
with them;

2. to have counsel or other advisor present, to

__ question the witness(es) of the accused, and to
present evidence and/or witness(es) in her or his
own behalf in all Committee processes;

3. to challenge the impartiality of anyone sitting on

—— the Committee and to have up to two of the members
of the Comnittee replaced.







In a recent case of alleged sexual harassment, it was
discovered that the Faculty Code section of the Senate
Rules does not extend to a complainant the same rights
allowed the accused faculty member. Because the
complainant in this case was denied the counsel privilege
granted to the accused, the serious, well-founded charges
against the faculty member were almost dropped. Changes in
the rules, however, are needed in cases other than those
involving sexual harassment. In our present litigious
atmosphere, the University regulations and policies should
equally protect all parties involved in a complaint and an
appeal. Otherwise, serious infractions may go unreported
because the complainant feels isolated and vulnerable to
reprisals or legal action.

Although these changes would guarantee the complainant the
privilege of counsel during the proceedings, they would not
obligate the University to provide legal counsel or other
advisor for the complainant. They merely extend to the
person making the complaint or accusation the same
procedural and substantive rights presently guaranteed the

‘Implementation Date: Immediately

The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned a

R ndall w. Dahl
Secretary of the University Senate

Note: The University Calendars are being circulated for your information.



February 15

March 15

June 1

June 15
June 22-
Ju1y 24
Ju1y 24
August 1

August 5

t/August 12

August 22-24

August 24

August 25
August 25

August 25

August 26








1987 Fa11 Semester

Sunday — Recommended date for freshmen to submit 1987 Fa11 Semester

Sunday - Dead1ine for submission of a11 app1ication materia1s, Co11ege of
Medicine, for Fa11 1987

Monday - Undergraduates p1anning to participate in the Summer Advising
Conferences, in preparation for the 1987 Fa11 Semester, shou1d app1y for
admission or readmission

Monday - Ear1iest date to submit app1ication for regu1ar and Ear1y
Decision Program admissi