xt7pvm42vn61 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7pvm42vn61/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1978-09-11  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, September 11, 1978 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 11, 1978 1978 1978-09-11 2020 true xt7pvm42vn61 section xt7pvm42vn61 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


Members , University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
September 11, 1978 at 3:00 p.m. in the Court Room of the Law

1) Approval of the Minutes of May 8, 1978.

2) Introductions and Brief Comments: Joseph A. Bryant, Jr.

3) Action Items:

a) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, 1, 4.1 Stand-
ing Committees, specifically 1, 4.1.12, Academic Organization
and Structure. (Circulated under date of August 25, 1978).


b) Proposed Termination Procedures for the Graduate School.
(Circulated under date of August 29, 1978.)

c) Proposed revisions in the Honor Code, College of Pharmacy.
(Circulated under date of August 31, 1978.)

Elbert W. Ockerman


Note: If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Ferguson, 7—2958.




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, September 11, 1978,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Charles E. Barnhart, Brack A. Bivins*, A. Edward Blackhurst*, Jack C.
Blanton, Jerry Brown, Joseph T. Burch, S. K. Chan*, Donald B. Clapp, Clinton Collins*,
Frank Colton*, William L. Conger*, Ronda S. Connaway*, Samuel F. Conti*, Patrick P. DeLuca*,
George W. Denemark*, Carolton Doran, Joseph M. Dougherty, Anthony Eardley*, James E. Funk,
Joseph H. Gardner*, Abner Golden*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Virgil W. Hays*, Alfred
S. L. Hu, Charles W. Hultman*, Clyde L. Irwin, H. Douglas Jameson, Edward J. Kifer*, Linda
Krefting, Arthur Lieber, Austin S. Litvak, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Susan A. McEvoy, Lora
McGuire, Marion E. McKenna*, Phillip W. Miller, Catherine Morsink*, Sid Neal*, Robert C.
Noble, Paul Oberst, Edward O'Hara, Bobby C. Pass*, Ronda S. Paul, David Peck, Michael
Roloff, Ramona Rush*, Pritam S. Sabharwal, George W. Schwert, Gerard E. Silberstein*, John
T. Smith*, Tim Smith*, Wade C. Smith, John B. Stephenson*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, John N.
Walker*, M. Stanley Wall, Richard L. Warren*, H. David Wilson*, Fred W. Zechman*

The minutes of the regular meeting of May 8, 1978, were accepted as circulated.

The Chairman recognized the official Chairman of the Senate, Dr. Otis A. Singletary,
who spoke to the Senate as follows:

Good afternoon, members of the Senate. I want to join Joe Bryant
in welcoming all of you back to campus and express my hope that you
had a pleasant summer. There are a few items I would like to touch on
that are in the way of general information, then let you proceed with
your agenda.

First of all, you might be interested in the enrollment data
available to us at this stage of the game. These figures are a result
of a conversation this morning. I would file one caveat; those of
you who have seen the ”Kernel” article know that a very large number
of students who are here and have been counted have not yet paid their
fees. It is, therefore, questionable how much longer they will be
here. In general, it appears that we will have in excess of 500 more
students than we had last year-—somewhere between a two or three
percent increase. These figures do not include the Fort Knox Center
off~campus figures.

An interesting point about the increase is that freshman en—
rollment is up about eight and one—half percent. It now appears that
we will surpass the record set in 1975, which was the largest fresh—
man class we had ever enrolled. If you are interested in speculating
about the reasons for the increase at the freshman level, I would
suggest at least two. One, we hope and are going to claim that it
reflects the increasing number of students from Kentucky coming to
this institution. It also reflects the increasing number of women
students who are coming to the University. In addition, the trans—
fers are up slightly and transfers from our own Community College
System are up.

*Absence explained


 You might be interested in the areas inside the University where
growth continues. Business and Economics, for example, has had
another substantial increase. Engineering is up substantially——the
Graduate School is up——the new College of Communications has had a
very dramatic increase. A number of other colleges have remained
essentially unchanged. We have some areas on campus which have a
decrease in enrollment. Agriculture is down——Allied Health is down——
Architecture is down—-so are Education and Social Professions. That
gives you some flavor of what the enrollment this year is. The
official figures will be available in the near future.

I would also like to remind you of some things that happened last
year that will have an impact on the year that we are now entering. I
think some comments on the budget are appropriate. Last year we
submitted our biennial budget request. When we prepared that request,
we had a number of emphases. First of all, we had a request for
those funds that are essentially non—discretionary——things we must do,
Such as social security. In addition to that, we had cost—of—living
requests that started out as ten percent and finally survived at five
percent. Salaries, utilities, current expenses are in that category.
We had some maintenance and operation dollars for new facilities.
We had some salary catch-up dollars, not only for faculty per se, but
county agents, librarians and certain categories of non—academic
employees. We also had some faculty position catch—up requests. It
also included some very modest requests for program expansion and the
support of new programs.

For the present operating year, as a result of the actions we
were able to take after the budget process was completed, we have
been able to make a number of commitments. The cost—of—living
adjustment was five percent. We also had some additional adjust—
ments in the catch—up category. This was a cause of considerable
misunderstanding and some disappointment on this campus. The
cost—of—living and the catch—up component of our budget request
and our funding were quite different. We asked for the money for
the catch up based on the concept of closing the gap between this
institution and the so—called benchmark institutions. We asked
for dollars to close that gap, and we received dollars to close
that gap partially. In fact, if our figures are anywhere near
accurate, we have closed that gap to something like 75 percent.
Our situation is still not precisely competitive, but it is not
as uncompetitive as it was. While we do not know what the other
institutions are going to do or have done, we will know in the
course of the year. The point I would make is that inside the
institution there was considerable feeling that this was not a
particularly wise way to allocate the money. It was our feeling
at the time we made the request that we could justify the request
and could probably obtain funds for it. We did, I think, support
that request--we did obtain some funds——although it was cut
substantially. The dollars given us were for distribution under
that set of understandings. The concept of closing the gap with
the benchmark institutions was not only the basis of asking for
the money, but it was the basis upon which we distributed the
money. I think you should understand that, though not necessarily
agree with it.



We also have a number of new positions that we will be filling.
The needs, I think, are very well known to most of you. We begin with
the past shortages. This University has operated, ever since I
have known it, with fewer faculty than even the formula which the
Council on Higher Education allows. We began with a catch—up problem
in positions, and then that became complicated with enrollment growth
and dislocations that come from population shifts from inside. The
Dean of Business and Economics understands precisely what I'm talking
about. There are other program considerations, and I would say to you
once again as members of this Senate, that we still have a very
sizable affirmative action problem that must be addressed. I urge
the Vice Presidents, Deans, Chairmen of Departments, and those of you
who serve on search committees, that as you seek to fill positions in
this institution you seek out qualified women and minority applicants,
and that we do a better job than we have done in the past. I know
it is difficult_—I hear all the concerns and arguments——but I will
tell you that we simply must do a better job. I ask your cooperation
in this. We were able to adjust the librarian salaries in relation
to the benchmark institutions and to adjust the salaries in the
classified area, at least selectively, to create something more
nearly comparative to the local job market in Lexington and Fayette

Next year, the second year of the biennium, there will not be many
surprises. We will have a cost—of—living increase, and we will have
some further adjustment in some of the classified salary areas. Other
than that, very little. If that sounds grim, I urge you to take a look
at what is happening around the country. I think most fair—minded
people will see that the University of Kentucky has not done badly.

If we are doing badly, it's not because of lack of interest, or concern,
or understanding. I think it is because of the fact that we have to

run faster all the time just to stay where we are. At the same time
gain additional dollars for the institution, the inflationary thrust

our age seems to devour our resources. That is not unique to our
institution; it is the world in which we live.

I would also like to remind you of the status of certain of our
degree programs which have been discussed or acted upon by this body.
You will recall that we have reactivated the B.S. and M.S. Degrees in
Mining Engineering, and they are ongoing. We also have a number of
programs at the Council on Higher Education in Frankfort—~two Ph.D.
programs and four masters level programs. The Ph.D. programs are in
Communications and in Philosophy. The masters programs are in Planning,
Forestry, Teaching of Mathematics, and Operations Research. They are
all over there and on their agenda. I am still holding in my own
hands a program~—Ph.D. in Criminal Justice. I have not reached a point
where I am comfortable in releasing that with a request for funds, and
forgetting other priority needs of our institution. There are
several other programs that are underway at one stage or another inside——
still others that are part of the five—year plan that we have already
gone through twice and will be going through again before long. You
will be asked to act upon a number of them.



In a related field, I want to say something about the physical
facilities of the institution. We have a number of projects that are
either completed or nearing completion. The Nursing—Health Science
Building is occupied. The Brown—Sanders Facility for Biology of Aging
will be occupied shortly. The Funkhouser renovations are completed and
the building is being occupied. The Fine Arts Building is continuing
apace——a great deal happened to it during the course of the summer-—but
it will be next year before we can occupy that building. The Law School
addition is underway. The student apartments are underway, and we hope
they will be in operation by registration next year. We had the great—
est crush in housing this year that we have ever had. At one time in
the summer we had almost 2,000 students who wanted housing which we were
not able to provide. While this dwindled considerably, it was still
very substantial, and obviously affected our enrollment to some degree.

There are some other things that you should know about——the
renovation of the Taylor Education Building; the addition to the Student
Center, which is definitely needed, and which can only be financed out of
student revenue. We have talked to the Council on Higher Education
about additional research space for the College of Medicine, about an
addition to the hospital which is a terribly crowded, overworked facility,
a Pharmacy Building, and about an Architecture Building. But there is
lack of clarity about the present status of those, as to whether or
not they will be funded; whether some of them will be allowed to go the
bonding route. There is a great deal of uncertainty at this time since
no clear—cut commitment exists.

I think it would also be worthwhile for us at this point to
remind ourselves of some of the things going on outside our private
gates in that somewhat larger world. What we are doing always takes
place against the backdrop of some other things. I have the feel—
ing that the national scene is characterized by a good bit of
skepticism, restraint and conservatism as far as higher education
is concerned. The public attitude toward social institutions, and
I certainly put universities very high on such a list, is reflected
in a whole range of sentiments that get expressed in things like
the Proposition 13 business in California. You can call it what you
will, whether it's just an economic thing or a manifestation of
middle class revolt or whatever it is——it is finding targets in
things like welfare, justice, the penal system, and education. An
institution like our own will not likely stand aside, or be allowed
to stand aside, from the sweep of such matters. You hear a good bit
of public concern about the quality of work in our schools, continu—
ing argument about the economic benefits of an education. The
popular version is Caroline Byrd's book which claims that education
doesn't really pay off anymore.

Higher Education financing is clearly going to be a major con—
cern. As you know, there is a very important policy question kicking
around in Washington having to do with tax credits versus the tradi—
tional forms of student aid. The interesting thing is that there
are very real differences between the public college and private
college conception of the desirability of those. The larger question
is whether you give aid directly to students or whether you support
institutions such as this one which historically are low tuition



enterprises——based on the assumption that this is the best way to
provide opportunity. All of these things are very much up in the air.

One of the popular proposals of today is a version of the old
Zacharias plan of a few years back, in which you create a Federal
Bank and all students who want to go to college can borrow money from
that bank. That has a great appeal to parents and certainly has
very great appeal to legislators who see themselves as people who
provide economic Support to this institution. But it would change
the whole financial structure of higher education. What it would do,
without much question, is to put the entire responsibility of bearing
the cost of education on students. I think that needs to be looked
at very carefully. It would mean an automatic spurt in the rise of
tuition because, in fact, the money would be going to the students.

I have had this argument with several of my colleagues. The only
way that the institution would have to obtain that money is through
tuition. The theory is that you would, in fact, charge what it
actually costs to educate.

I think the inflationary spiral is going to continue to eat
away at us. It works on us in two ways——not just in those financial
terms that we all know about, but in ways that affect everybody. We
are unique in yet another way and that is the various revolutions
going on in technology and the kinds of things that now go into the
educational program are becoming so prohibitively expensive that we
not only are faced with the general inflationary surge of the
country, but we are faced with the inflationary concern that runs
to this particular kind of institution.

I think you can accompany all this with a knowledge that the Federal
Government, and to some degree the State Government, will continue to
have some concern. I believe that the auditing of the universities by
the Federal Government has taken a very curious swing in the last year
or so. So far as I know, no major research institution in the country
has escaped Such an audit. I think the Federal concern about rising
costs is going to apply to education as well. I think that the public
interest in measuring outputs——this is a very ”hot” item these days——
will continue. If you don’t know it, I'll alert you now. The Council
on Higher Education in this State has already adopted in principle a
program for its colleges and universities which would measure the
"outputs" of what we do.

There are, however, some reasonably good signs as far as we are
concerned. I think the last budget evolution gives us some indication
that it is possible to generate concern and action on behalf of higher
education. I thought, and still think, that this University did
reasonably well in the process. As I said earlier, the more I look
at other institutions the happier I am with that comparison. I think
that we have not yet faced much of what has gone on in other parts of
the country. I think we are fortunate because of the generally
healthy economic condition of the State. There are some who do not
agree with that, but I think our unemployment rate has been quite
favorable, our population rate continues to grow faster than the
National rate. Whatever the other problems are, the outlook for coal,
for agriculture, and for industrial development in Kentucky ought to



be at least rather optimistic. Because our institutional life is
directly conditioned by these things, they should be a matter of more
than passing interest to us. I think, in a curious kind of reverse
twist, we are fortunate because we have a relatively large underserved
population out there. Kentucky is one of those states that has run
historically very low proportionately in the college age group who
have, in fact, chosen to go on to college. I hope that is changing——

I believe it is. I expect us to be a part of that general improvement.

I mentioned the Council on Higher Education. I must from time to
time remind you that it has, and in some ways has increasing, power
and authority with regard to the institutions of the State. I think
you can expect them to continue their very real interest in programs
and budget. I think you will see us moving more directly toward some
kind of formula funding in the State. There is a very real concern
about the comparability of costs in higher education in the State——I
have already mentioned their interest in ”outputs.” I think all of
these things are ”straws in the wind” out there. While in your
day—to—day lives you are not going to come into contact with them, by
virtue of your position as Senators, you ought to have some awareness
of them and some concern of what their potential impact might be on
this institution.

A few more notes, if you will indulge me. I will report to you
that in the course of the summer we did get agreement on the new
medical practice plan; it was a result of a series of compromises, and
I must say that nobody got everything they wanted. But it is my belief
that it was a reasonably satisfactory resolution to an enormously
difficult problem. We are proceeding under the plan at this time.

I am sure all of you are aware of the fact that the Ephraim McDowell
Cancer Network is now an ongoing clinical cancer center for the
State. I hope you know we have established an Appalachian Center
and while there is no way for you to know it yet, I will remind you
that we are about to go again into that Herculean task known as the
institutional Self—Study of the Southern Association. That comes
every ten years. I am aware of my aging process, because it happened
in my first year here. The date for that to come around is 1979.
Since much of their interest now is on planning, I am hoping this
time that we may be able to tie it much more directly to our long—
range institutional plan.

These are matters I wanted to share with you, because I think
you should be interested in them, and I hope you are. I say again,
it is good to have you back on campus, and I wish for all of us and
for each of you personally, a very pleasant, productive year.

Dr. Singletary was given an enthusiastic applause. Chairman Bryant thanked the
President for his remarks and said that he hoped he would come back again soon.

Chairman Bryant introduced Dr. Elbert W. Ockerman, Dean of Admissions and Registrar
and also Secretary of the Senate; and Martha M. Ferguson, Recording Secretary.



Chairman Bryant welcomed all the new Senators and introduced the Senate Council and
the Chairmen of various committees of the Senate. The Council members are: Daniel R. Reedy,
College of Arts and Sciences, Secretary of the Senate Council; T. Richard Robe, College of
Engineering; Constance P. Wilson, College of Social Professions, Faculty Trustee and former
Chairman of the Senate Council; John Lienhard, College of Engineering; Joseph Krislov,
College of Business and Economics, also former Chairman of the Senate Council; George Schwert,
College of Medicine; Jane Emanuel, College of Allied Health Professions, Ombudsman;

Paul Oberst, College of Law, Retired Chairman of the Senate Council; Michael Adelstein,
College of Arts and Sciences, Faculty Trustee and former Chairman of the Senate Council;
Gene Tichenor, President of Student Government; Stockton Wood, student member, College of
Law; Buzz English, student member, College of Business and Economics.

The Chairman also introduced an unofficial member of the Senate Council, Ms. Celinda
Todd and the Senate thanked Ms. Todd for all of the work she has done.

Chairman Bryant recognized Professor Daniel Reedy, Secretary of the Senate Council,
who presented the following Resolution on Professor Paul Oberst.


WHEREAS, Professor Paul Oberst has served as Chairman of the Senate
Council during the period January to August, 1978, and has thus acquired
the distinction of having the briefest tenure as Chairman in the recorded
history of the Senate (the result not of misconduct on his part but of
changes in Senate rules governing the term of office),

AND WHEREAS, he has presided over the meetings of the Senate during
this period with such patience and skill that he has never been forced
to resort to such terms of his trade as sine die or res ipsa loquitur,


AND WHEREAS his service to the University community has included
three full terms as faculty representative on the University of Kentucky
Board of Trustees, membership in the University Senate since 1970, and
of the Senate Council in 1971—73 and 1976—78, serving also as Secretary
of the Council,

AND WHEREAS during his term as Senate Council Chairman he was not
instrumental in creating a single new standing committee of the Senate
(rather he acted daringly by appointing an Ad Hoc Committee to study,
modify, and possibly reduce the size of the Senate's existing committee

AND WHEREAS during the early days of his Chairmanship, when the
University suffered from the adverse conditions caused by inclement
weather in January and February, he remained at his station in the
Senate Council Office, answering inquiries patiently and responding re—
assuringly to faculty concerns caused by the interruptions of three
snow days and two blizzard days,

AND WHEREAS he has executed these duties with a seriousness of
purpose, with a human concern for the morale of faculty and students,
with the diplomacy and wisdom of one thoroughly schooled and practiced
in jurisprudential skills, and with an unfailing good sense of humor,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Senate expresses its apprecia-
tion to Paul Oberst for his service as Senator and Chairman of the

Senate Council, regreting only that his term of office was so short,




for we could certainly have tolerated a full—term of his prudent
leadership. We ask now that this resolution be entered in the Senate
minutes and that a copy be sent him in testimony of the Senate's true
admiration for him and appreciation of his service.

Professor Robert Rudd, Department of Agricultural Economics, presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor Hugh B. Price:

Hugh B. Price 1888 — 1978

Dr. Hugh Bruce Price, Professor of Agricultural Economics from 1929—1959,
died June 6, 1978, in Louisville, Kentucky.

Dr. Price was born in Tulare, South Dakota, October 21, 1888. He re—
ceived an A.B. Degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1914, an M.A. Degree
from the University of Minnesota in 1916 and the Ph.D. from Yale University
in 1921.

He joined the staff of the University of Minnesota in 1921 as Professor
of Agricultural Economics. It was here that he developed an interest in and
keen insight into agricultural marketing. This interest led to the writing
of his pioneer text, "The Marketing of Farm Products.” It was also at
Minnesota that he collaborated with John D. Black in studies of centralized
cooperative marketing organizations.

In 1929 Dr. Price came to the University of Kentucky as Professor of
Agricultural Marketing and Head of the Department of Markets and Rural

Finance. He continued as Head to 1946. Under his leadership, the depart—
ment grew rapidly and a highly successful graduate program was developed at
the master's degree level. He made significant contributions in research
on tobacco and worked with farm organizations in developing agricultural
policy and programs related to tobacco.

During his teaching career he taught courses in the entire area of
Agricultural Economics, at both graduate and undergraduate levels. His
students remember him best for his penetrating insights into economic
problems and his patience and adeptness in explaining complex ideas.

His administrative ability was again demonstrated in 1952 when he be—
came Acting Head of the Department of Agronomy during a period of re—
organization. He later moved into administration of the Kentucky
Agricultural Experiment Station, culminating as Acting Dean and Director.
In 1959 he retired from the University and became Professor Emeritus of
Agricultural Economics.

His professional service contributions reflect clearly the esteem
in which agricultural economists held him. He was elected Vice President
of the American Farm Economics Association in 1938 and President of the
organization in 1940. He served as Editor of the Journal of Farm
Economics from 1942 to 1949 and was'elected a Fellow of the American
Farm Economics Association in 1962.

He was a member of the Board of Trustees of Centre College, Danville,
Kentucky and an elder of the Second Presbyterian Church in Lexington.


 He is survived by three sons, Dwight L. Price of Lexington; H. Bruce
Price, Jr., of Madison, Wisconsin; Dr. Glenn Price of Bay Port, New York;
and a daughter, Mrs. Alfred Moore of Jeffersonville, Indiana.

The faculty of the Department of Agricultural Economics wishes to
express to Dr. Price's children, Bruce, Dwight, Esther and Glenn, their
deep sympathy and feeling of sorrow in the loss of this beloved teacher,
colleague and friend. I move that this resolution be spread upon the
minutes of the University Senate and that copies be sent to Dr. Price's

(Prepared by Professor Robert Beck and Professor James Criswell, College of Agriculture)

Professor Rudd requested that the resolution be made a part of these minutes and that
a copy be provided to the members of the family. Following Professor Rudd's presentation
of the resolution, the Senators were asked to stand for a moment of silence in tribute
and respect to Professor Hugh B. Price.

Chairman Bryant recognized Professor Daniel Reedy. On behalf of the Senate Council
Professor Reedy presented a motion to adopt the proposal to change the Rules of thg
University Senate, 1, 4.1.12, Academic Organization and Structure. This was circulated
to members of the University Senate under date of August 25, 1978, and reads as follows:



The proposal by the Senate Committee on Academic Organization and
Structure submitted to the Senate Council and approved by it on
August 8, 1978 is as follows:

That the Senate Council approve an addition to the charge of
the standing Committee on Academic Organization and Struc—
ture directing it to establish a subcommittee on Analysis of
Resource Allocations.

That the Senate Council shall designate a member of the Com-
mittee on Academic Organization and Structure as Chairman

of the subcommittee and that five additional subcommittee
members shall be appointed by the Committee on Academic
Organization and Structure to serve on the subcommittee for
staggered terms of three years. The subcommittee members
shall be appointed from those eligible to vote in elections
for membership in the Senate and should not be representative
of any constituency.

That the functioning of this subcommittee shall be to inform
the Senate and its Committees of the allocation of resources
by examining and analyzing matters concerning budget, space,
and services. In order to obtain this information, the
subcommittee is expected to formulate a series of budgetary
questions of concern to the faculty and present them to the
administration. The subcommittee should not serve as a
policy making body, but will study, when appropriate, such
matters as salaries, faculty size and strength, student en—
rollment, space (including classrooms), equipment, and
renovations of space or equipment relevant to academic pro—
grams and functions.



Proposed Implementation Date: Immediately.


Chairman Bryant asked Professor Jesse Harris, Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure, for any comments and to answer questions.

Professor Harris spoke to the Senate, explaining the background for the proposed
change and what it may be expected to accomplish. Professor Harris' remarks follow:

At the meeting of the University Senate on May 8, 1978, I pre—
sented for the Committee on Academic Organization and Structure a
proposal for a new Committee on the Analysis of Resource Allocations.
The report was the product of a full year of study by the Committee.
The details of that report appear in the Minutes of the University
Senate dated May 8, 1978. In view of the fact that the Senate has
added new members for the current academic year, I shall read once
again the names of the members of the Committee who developed this
proposal: William Wagner, Chemistry, Chairman of the Subcommittee;
Donald Leigh, Engineering; William Matthews, Law; Harold Traurig,
Anatomy, Medical Center, all members of the Subcommittee. Addi—
tional members of the full Committee were as follows: Ellen Baxter,
Chemistry Library; Alexander Gilchrist, King Library; Andrew Grimes,
Business Administration; Rey Longyear, Music; Clayton Omvig, Vo—
cational Education; Patrick Sammon, Oral Biology; Jesse Weil,
Physics; William Winter, Orthopedic Surgery; Louise Zegeer, Nur—
sing; Jesse Harris, Psychology, Chairman of the Committee.

Interviews were conducted by the full Committee with the
President of the University and five Vice—Presidents. Reactions
ranged from conservative reluctance to endorse the proposal to
moderately positive opinions on the part of the administrators.
After much discussion, the proposal was adopted unanimously by the
Committee on March 20 and then presented to the Senate Council on
March 29. It was then presented to the Senate as a ”Discussion
Only” item on May 8, 1978.

The central features of that proposa