xt7sj38khh9v https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sj38khh9v/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1992-04-27  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, April 27, 1992 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 27, 1992 1992 1992-04-27 2020 true xt7sj38khh9v section xt7sj38khh9v LNHVERSHY OF KENTUCKY




T0: Members, University Senate
The University Senate will meet in called, special session on

Monday, AgrfifiiZfl;¥l§92§ at 3:00 P.M. in room 115 of the Nursing Building


1. Resolutions.
2. mmhflsammmm&mmm.

a. Waiver request for ten day circulation requirement for several
items on the agenda.

b. Remarks on faculty governance —- examples from Senate


From the Chancellor of the Lexington Campus on: a) Admission
statistics, last couple of years and projections for next few
years. b) Retention. c) scholarship information and trends.

Action Items

a. Action on the report of the ad hoc Committee on the Status of
Minoritories (circulated under date of 31 March 1992).

Action on proposed Honor Code for College of Medicine.
(circulated under date of 17 April 1992).

Action on proposed Honor Code for College of Law —— code very
similar to that of Medicine

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I, (Ex Officio, Voting Membership). To remove the Vice
Chancellor of Academic Affairs of the Lexington Campus and
substitute the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. (The post of Vice
Chancellor of Academic Affairs of the Lexington Campus no
longer exists.)

Proposed addition of Vice Chancellor for Minority Affairs as an
ex—officio, non-voting member of the University Senate.

Randall Dahl
Secretary, University Senate




The University Senate met in a called session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April
27, l992, in Room ll5 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Marcus T. McEllistrem, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Jim Arnett, Richard C. Ausness, Robert S. Baker,
Bart Baldwin, John R. Ballantine*, Harry V. Barnard*, John J. Bernardo*, Glenn
C. Blomquist, Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Douglas A. Boyd, Martha
Bruenderman, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan Butterfield, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr.,
Bradley C. Canon*, Clyde R. Carpenter, Ben w. Carr, Edward A. Carter, Samuel
Q. Castle*, Donald B. Clapp, w. Harry Clarke, Jordan L. Cohen, Patricia
Collins, Raymond H. Cox, Clifford J. Cremers, Lenore Crihfield, Scott A.
Crosbie, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, David S. Durant, Jr.*, Paul M. Eakin, Bruce
5. Eastwood*, Richard Edwards, Daniel Fulks*, Richard N. Furst, Joseph H.
Gardner, Misha Goetz, Lester Goldstein, Tod A. Griffin, Robert D. Guthrie, J.
John Harris III, Zafar S. Hasan*, Christine Havice, Robert E. Hemenway, Donald
L. Hochstrasser*, Brian Hoffman, Micki King Hogue, Don A. Howard, Jay Ingle,
Richard A. Jensen*, Adrian Jones, Kevin S. Kiernan*, Angela Knopp, Kenneth K.
Kubota, James M. Kuder, Thomas w. Lester, C. Oran Little, William E. Lyons,
Lee Magid*, Pamela McMahon, Shawn Meauz, Peggy S. Meszaros*, Richard S.
Milich*, Sandra Miller, David A. Nash, Derby Newman, Clayton P. Omvig, Clayton
R. Paul*, Barbara Phillips, Clyde D. Poe, Daniel R. Reedy, Thomas C. Robinson,
Arturo A. Sandoval*, Edward C. Scheiner, Jim Shambhu, Michael C. Shannon,
Andrew Shveda, Timothy w. Sineath*, M. Scott Smith*, Robert H. Spedding*,
David H. Stockham, Brian Stover, Theodore R. Tauchert*, Michael G. Tearney*,
Dennis M. TeKrony, John S. Thompson*, Ann R. Tickamyer, Miroslaw
Truszczynski*, Thomas Tucker, Charles T. Wethington*, Eugene R. Williams,
Emery A. Wilson*, and Peter Nong*.

The Chairperson called the final meeting of the University Senate for the
l99l-l992 academic year into session. He stated that the minutes would not be
presented, and he moved immediately to Resolutions. The first Resolution was
a Memorial Resolution to be presented by Professor Thomas T. Lillich, College
of Dentistry. \

Professor Lillich stated that it was his unhappy responsibility to stand
before the Senate for the second time in three months to read a Memorial
Resolution recording the death of a member of his faculty.


Donald Thomas Anderson
l955 - l992

Donald Thomas Anderson, an assistant professor in the Department
of Oral Health Science in the College of Dentistry, died suddenly at
his home on April l8, l992. He is survived by his wife, Dr. Leslie
Carol Horn and two step-children, Ryan and Hope Preece.

*Absence explained.


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, 1992

Donnie was born July 9, l955 in Bardstown, Kentucky to James and
Sara Anderson. He was one of T8 children. He attended Elizabethtown
Community College and then the University of Kentucky where he
received a Bachelor of Science in zoology. After working for two
years he was accepted into the University of Kentucky College of
Dentistry in l98l and received the Doctor of Dental Medicine in l985.

Donnie was in the private practice of dentistry for four years
in Inez, Kentucky. He returned to the College of Dentistry in l989
as a full—time Fellow in the Orofacial Pain Program. After
completing that Fellowship, he joined the College faculty with joint
appointments in Restorative Dentistry and Oral Diagnosis/Oral
Medicine and then subsequently became full-time in Oral Diagnosis/
Oral Medicine. He continued to teach in the Orofacial Pain Program
and maintained an intramural private practice of general dentistry
and orofacial pain.

Even in the relatively short time he was on the faculty, Donnie
had become a valued colleague and an effective teacher. His
diagnostic and clinical skills were exemplary. These abilities,
coupled with his infectious good humor, enthusiasm, and accessibility
made him very popular with students, staff, faculty, and patients.
His advice was frequently sought for clinical problems or to help
students deal with the stresses associated with a demanding
professional curriculum. He set high expectations as a teacher but
approached students with a degree of concern and devotion that earned
their admiration and respect. This approach also increased his
effectiveness in the often stressful patient care environment.

Donnie made friends easily because he so clearly cared about those
with whom he associated. Consequently, he had many close
relationships among students, faculty and patients as well as many
individuals from all walks of life. He enriched the lives of all who
knew him.

Donnie Anderson was a valued friend and colleague and a teacher
of exceptional effectiveness. His untimely death has shocked and
saddened the entire College community not only because it was
unexpected but because it cut short the very promising academic
career of an individual who had, in a relatively short time, begun
making important educational and patient care contributions to the

Professor Lillich asked that the resolution be included in the minutes of
this meeting and that a copy be delivered to his family. The Chairperson
asked the Senate to stand for a moment of silence in recognition of Professor

The Chairperson stated there was one additional resolution to present
which was a resolution of celebration rather than a memorial one. The
Chairperson recognized Professor Carolyn Bratt, College of Law, to present the
resolution to the Senate.


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, l992

Dr. Raymond F. Betts
from the
University Senate
April 27, 1992

It is a privilege to present this resolution of appreciation for
and thanks to Dr. Raymond F. Betts for his years of service to the
faculty of the University of Kentucky as a member of the University
Senate, the Senate Council and Board of Trustees. It is also very
appropriate that we pause, now, to honor him. As you know, the
faculty of this University has been under attack recently by some who
question our commitment to teaching, the value of our research and
our willingness to perform public service. Professor Betts is our
best answer to those wrongheaded critics. He is the quintessential
professor - a recipient of the University's Great Teacher Award, a
nationally and internationally recognized historian, an author, a
columnist, a commentator and a public servant in the best tradition
of that ideal.

Professor Betts' accomplishments also include his directorship
of the Honors Program and the establishment of the Gaines Center for
the Humanities on our campus. The Honors Program and the Humanities
Center have nurtured literally thousands of students whose
intellectual interests could not be neatly pigeon—holed into one
particular discipline. Just as importantly, these two programs have
provided nourishment for the faculty participants. They, too, have
interests which span the traditional academic disciplines as well as
the need for a place where they can fulfill their personal commitment
to teaching. Long before an interest in teaching excellence became
fashionable in higher education, Professor Betts was a master of this
art form. Moreover, he was providing us with forums in which we,
too, could hone our teaching skills.

Professor Betts has also demonstrated a strong and lasting
commitment to fulfilling the responsibilities as well as asserting
the rights attendant to the notion of faculty governance. He has
given unsparingly of his time and effort regardless of the personal
cost to him to insure that the faculty's voice is heard. And, when
he has been charged by us to give voice to our concerns, he has
always done so in the most convincing and persuasive manner.

Professor Betts served as the faculty representative on the
Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky for six tumultuous
years under three different Presidents. Time and again, he
represented us under what can most charitably be described as
"difficult” circumstances. Although often without the support or
even the understanding of a majority of the Board of Trustees,
Professor Betts nonetheless insisted that the faculty voice must be
heard on issues as controversial as the NCAA investigation of our
basketball program, to the selection of an interim and permanent
president, to the most recent attacks on the integrity of the faculty.


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, l992

Professor Betts never tested the political winds to determine
whether he should articulate our concerns and opinions. Instead, his
touchstone was his own unerring sense of what is ethical, fair and
just. He never tailored what he said or trimmed his sails because of
the impact his words and actions might have on his career at this
University. Instead, he consulted with us and then spoke for us, at
times courageously, because he believed he was duty-bound to
represent our interests, not his self—interest.

And, when Professor Betts spoke at Board of Trustees' meetings,
it was always done in the most erudite manner. He drew on his
seemingly inexhaustible store of knowledge and vocabulary to find the
right combination of thoughts, images and words to demonstrate to the
Board the cogency of the faculty's Opinion. During Professor Betts'
tenure on the Board of Trustees, the faculty was, indeed, well-
represented and well-served. .

I know that you all join With me in honoring Dr. Raymond Betts,
not just for his numerous professional achievements, but because he
has set an example of what it means to be a responsible, contributing
member of a community of scholars. Please join with me, now, in
publicly thanking him.

I move that this Resolution be Spread upon the minutes of this
meeting of the University Senate and that a copy of these minutes be
sent to Dr. Raymond Betts.

Professor Betts was given a round of applause. The Chairperson stated
that Professor Betts was celebrated again on the editorial pages of the
Kentucky Kernel on April 27, and added that if anyone had not had the
opportunity to read that they might enjoy reading the article.

The Chairperson recognized Chancellor Robert Hemenway of the Lexington
Campus to report on admissions statistics, scholarship statistics, and
retention. Dr. Roseann Hogan assisted Chancellor Hemenway in presenting his

Chancellor Hemenway presented charts and made the following remarks.

Thank you Marc. As part of the new admission requirements
passed by.the Senate last year, and the enrollment management
procedures we have been putting into place in the last couple of
years, the Senate has asked me to make an annual report on enrollment
statistics. I am going to be doing so with the help of Dr. Roseann
Hogan, Director of Institutional Research on the Lexington Campus.
She has done a terrific job in the last two years in developing the
databases that we need to know what our enrollment is, know what the
demographics of that enrollment are, and know how to analyze that
data and make good judgements about the size of the student body at
the University of Kentucky. We also have present Joe Fink, who is
Director of Admissions and peOple from his staff: Don Byars and Kate
Johnson. Randy Dahl, University Registrar is here, so we should


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, 1992

have sufficient expertise so that any questions you have I won't have
to answer myself. We do want to answer your questions.

The first chart is first-time freshmen enrollment. It has been
fluctuating a little bit from 1986 to 1991, from 2400 plus in 1986 to
the high of 2900 in 1988. This year's first—time freshman class was
2836. We might also mention that this year our overall enrollment in
Lexington, counting all students, freshmen as well as other students,
is over 24,000 for the first time in many years. As a footnote, the
statistics being used include both the Lexington Campus and the
Medical Center, so entering Medical Center students are included in
the charts.

The second chart shows the mix of in—state and out-of-state
students. You can see a couple of things from this chart. The point
I would make most readily is that 78 percent of the freshmen class of
the University of Kentucky in Lexington comes from in-state.
Twenty-two percent comes from out—of—state and that out-of-state
portion has been growing from about 16 percent in 1986 to 22 percent
today. There are a couple of reasons for why that is taking place.
One thing that is happening is that the academic reputation of the
University of Kentucky is becoming increasingly known. It is
becoming increasingly known because we appear in a lot of the
publications that students read to decide where they want to go to
college. Publications like ”How to Get an Ivy League Education at a
Public University Price”, and ”Three Hundred Best Buys in Higher
Education." Thus, the out—of-state enrollment is a function of two
things; one is the academic reputation of the institution, the fact
that you do get considerable quality for a reasonably low price at
the University of Kentucky. Second, it is economic factors affecting
the students who are enrolling. The out—of-state tuition is around
$5,100, the room and board is around $4,000. That is $9,100 and many
students can go to the University of Kentucky at considerably less
than just the tuition cost of many other institutions.

In the next chart you can see, I think, one reason for the
growth of academic reputation at the University of Kentucky, and that
is the number of top students who are choosing to go to UK. Three
years ago we made a conscious, strategic decision to emphasize the
recruiting of excellent students. The premise, I think, was that we
cannot have an excellent university without an excellent student
body. We also know something characteristic of students who are
making their college choices. When they see the best of their class
going to an institution, it makes that institution attractive to
them. The increases that we have seen in national merit scholars
from 12 in 1989 to 48 this last year, and the number of Governor's
Scholars increasing over that same period, demonstrate this
phenomenon. We might particularly give some praise here to the
admissions office, to Joe Fink, Randy Mills, Don Byars, and
particularly to Kate Johnson who is the Merit Scholarship
Coordinator. They have done an excellent job, along with all of
their colleagues, to recruit the very best students in Kentucky and


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, l992

The next chart gives us a feeling for where we are in relation
to our benchmarks in National Merit Scholars. As you can see, we are
behind VPI, but we compare well with Illinois, North Carolina, and
two universities we did not put on the chart, Vanderbilt and the
University of Pennsylvania. The point we would make with this chart
is that the University of Kentucky is in a range of schools that we
want to be with when we think about National Merit Scholars
enrolling. At the same time that we are focusing on the very best
students, we have to be concerned about the overall students as
well. What you see next is a chart which shows that over the last
three years or so we have been pretty much at stasis in improving the
entering ACT score of all freshmen. The entering ACT score is simply
one index by which you measure your entering freshman class, but it
is a useful index. It is less predictable for some groups than
others, but the point we need to make about this chart is that we
have been basically at the same 23.9 average entering ACT for the
last four years. It is my hope, and at least a preliminary
judgement, that we will see some improvement this year, but we won't
know for sure until the fall. You compare 23.9 with the average ACT
score nationally and you can see the difference between the students
who are entering the University of Kentucky and the national average.

There are some interesting demographic features of the freshman
class. Frankly, the charts I'm going to show you I didn't believe
when Roseann first put them together, and it took her about two
months to convince me that they are right. When we look at our
first—time freshmen, they are almost all l9 years of age or less. It
is a very, very small portion of our freshman class that comes from
higher age group. When you combine that with the next chart, which
shows the full-time versus part-time status of first-year freshmen,
you realize something about our freshman class. It is young, it is
almost entirely full—time, it is traditional. National statistics
show a much higher number of part-time students entering a freshman

I think this should affect our pedagogy. When we look at the
freshman year for students at the University of Kentucky, we have to
keep this kind of data in mind. We have to keep the age of those
students in mind. For example, one reason we see many students at
the University of Kentucky frustrated with bureaucratic procedures
for a freshman class of 2800 students is age. As faculty, one of the
things we can be sensitive to is that these are relatively young
students who are going full-time. They may be working, but they are
not working even half—time and certainly not full—time. We have
various mechanisms in place to help these students. I have been
particularly impressed with UK lOl, which is really a kind of
freshman orientation course. The demographics of the freshman class
show a 6.7 percent African-Americans enrollment, with 22 percent
increase in minority enrollment last year. The significant part of
that to me is that it means we are approaching the percentage of the
populace of Kentucky which is African—American, which, is a little
over seven percent.


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, T992

The next chart is a geographic chart which explains where the
students come from, and you see there are 31 percent from central
Kentucky, 2l percent from Louisville, 8 percent from Northern
Kentucky, and 22 percent from Appalachia. You still have a large
number of students coming from central Kentucky, as one might

The reason we wanted to share this application information with
you was that as we get into enrollment management and think seriously
about it, we have to keep an eye on the admission process. We will
monitor this very carefully the next year, and it is conceivable that
we may want to make some adjustments in the way we admit students.
Eighty—three percent of the students we are admitting to our freshman
class are automatic admits, meaning that they are coming in
automatically under the rules. Seventeen percent are going into a
delayed pool to be decided with a more total review of their
credentials. When you separate it according to ACT cohorts, you
realize that there are over a thousand students who are being
admitted to the University of Kentucky with ACT's of less than 24.

If 24 is where we are now, and we are trying to increase that
entering ACT score, then the question has to be, 'Will we be able to
significantly increase the entering ACT, if we are admitting a
thousand students automatically who are below the average we want?‘
I am not ready to make a recommendation on that, because I think it
needs some further study; but it is something that showed up when we

started to analyze this data, and I tnink we all might want to give
some thought to it.

How well does this freshman class do? You see in this retention
chart for the freshman class about 9l percent of them are still here
for the spring semester, and about 76 percent are here for the fall
semester of their sophomore year. When you chart retention over
seven—years, about six percent of those freshmen are still with us,
still seeking a degree at the end of the seventh year, while 52.3
percent of them have graduated.

How we go about projecting future enrollments? This is a chart
showing the number of Kentucky High School graduates who are
attending college. You can see very quickly why l992 is a critical
year. There are only 34,000 plus high school graduates, graduating
from Kentucky high schools this year. That is clearly the lowest in
a number of years, and the percentage of graduates who are attending
college is pretty stable over the next few years. The number goes
down a little bit, but it is basically somewhere around l9 to 2l
thousand students attending college. Thus, this year is a
particularly tough year for recruiters. The Admissions Office has to
work that much harder this year to hit the target numbers that we
have given them, because there are simply fewer people graduating
from high school in the state of Kentucky.

This is current data as of this date, or near this date, from
the Admissions Office for the Fall l992 class. You see that we are


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, l992

down a little bit in in-state applications, up a little bit in
out-of-state applications, and slightly up overall. However, in
people admitted we are down in-state, down out-of-state, and the
total admissions are down about five percent. We have admitted about
five percent fewer students this year at this time than we did last
year. We are, however, up over where we were in l989-90.

The quality of the freshman class for this coming fall looks
pretty good to us. At this point we will not get all of these
students, but in our academic scholarship pool, there were 748
applicants with an ACT of 28 or above and 3.0 GPA. Of that group
there were 270 Singletary scholarship candidates with at least a 3l
ACT and 3.5 GPA. Included in that list are l35 valedictorians, 93
National Merit or National Merit semifinalists and l73 perfect grade
point averages.

The Senate asked us to think in terms of 2700 freshmen for
l992-93. That was the number that I also had concluded was a proper
goal. It may be a little over that, it may be a little bit under
that, but somewhere in that range is probably what we will come up
with. Kate Johnson is always conservative, and her estimate was 50
National Merit Scholars, but I estimate 50 to 60 National Merit
Scholars because I have such.confidence in Kate's recruiting

There are also three National Achievement Scholars that we know
will be attending the University in Fall l992. National Achievement
Scholars are special, high achieving minority scholars who are
identified by the College Board. That is an improvement on what we
have been able to do in the past, and we are very pleased with that

That's basically the story to tell as far as freshman class
enrollment applications, etc. I will be glad to answer any questions
that you may have.

Professor Ray Betts (Gaines Center for Humanities) wanted to know if there
has been an increase or decline in the retention rate over the last few
years. People who give reports are for a conglomerate of the four-year
students and, of course, there is a disparity if the retention rate is not as
high as the increase in scores. He imagines that will change. He wanted to
know if Chancellor Hemenway has noticed a change in the last year or last two
years. Dr. Hogan stated that there is no pattern that can be seen at the
present. Chancellor Hemenway stated that the one thing that would suggest to
him there might be that kind of pattern is that, as the Senate has recognized,
there is a correspondence between ACT scores and graduation rates when
starting to break down the cohorts. The thing that has impressed him the most
is some data that showed the I984 class compared to the l983 class. The l983
class was the last year of open admissions; the l984 class was the first year
of selective admissions. The retention rate for the class of l984 jumped
about ll percent. That seems to him to conclude that it was a good decision
to go to selective admissions, and it is going to pay off in retention. He


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, l992

feels retention is something that really needs to be studied; it is important
to retain students, every student that is retained is a "paying customer."
They are people who pay tuition, and both the state funding is programmed on
the basis of tuition paying students and enrolled students and also the
tuition itself is going to be important in a time of financial difficulty.
Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) feels the news is as good as the
report of the very fine performance of Dr. Betts and suggested that a round of
applause should be given to the people who had done the terrific recruiting.
[The Senate gave those people a round of applause.] Chancellor Hemenway
stated they are always glad to ride on Professor Betts' coattail at any time.

The Chairperson thanked the Chancellor and Dr. Hogan for the informative
report. He thinks one of the goals in the Strategic Plan is to take the
retention rate to 75 percent.

The Chairperson stated that the first action item was on the floor of the
Senate when it recessed at the last meeting, and he recognized Professor John
Piecoro, to present the item. Professor Piecoro stated that the last time the
Senate was dealing with the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on
Minorities. Professor Piecoro pointed out some changes that the Senate
Council is recommending in the recommendations that are dated April 7, l992.
On page 2, No. 5, line 3 beginning with "including but not limited to
department heads ........ ” Before “department heads” Chairpersons should be
inserted. In the last line of No. 5 delete "encourage va|u1ng of.” Professor
Piecoro added that items 5 and 6 of the recommendations are being implemented
in the revised Administrative Regulations and items 7, 8, 9 and l0 have been
included in the Women's Report and items ll, l2, and l3 have been started and
most of those have been accomplished. The floor was opened for discussion.

Professor Meil suggested that in No. 5, five lines down to be reworded to
state, "required to show evidence.“ He also feels it would be helpful to add
"of" before ”efforts." lhe Chairperson stated it is "efforts to improve the

encourage valuing ...... Professor McMahon asked what No. 5 means. He wanted
to know what the Dean of the College of Law is expected to do to comply with
No. 5. Professor James Applegate (Communications) stated that basically the
thrust is that in the current system of evaluating department heads,
Chairpersons, deans, supervisors, directors, etc. that it be assured when
reporting various accomplishments for merit evaluations, one part of the
evaluation would involve their efforts to improve cultural diversity. The
committee intentionally left that general, but the idea would be that the
administrator could be asked to document what they have done to give
leadership in this area and that they would be evaluated accordingly.
Professor McMahon wanted to know what would happen if an administrator had
looked at Yugoslavia and what is about to happen to Canada and say that
cultural diversity is a very bad idea? Professor Betts stated there is a
difference between cultural adversity and cultural antagonism and he feels the
Senate should look upon that to diversify does not necessarily mean

Professor Roberta Harding (Law) does not understand what is wrong witn
cultural diversity. She wanted to know what Professor McMahon's objections
are? Professor McMahon stated that all he had done was ask questions.


 Minutes, University Senate, April 27, l992

Professor Harding stated that his questions contained suggestions that an
administrator might feel that cultural diversity is not a good goal.

Professor McMahon asked whether or not someone has a right to their own
political opinions? Professor Harding added that anyone could have a right to
their own political opinions, but the University can also say that this is a
goal of the University as a state agency, but as Chancellor Hemenway has said
before and as Professor Bratt said in Professor Betts‘ resolution the
community of the University can show that cultural diversity is important. At
one's home one may not think this is important.

Professor Frank Scott (Economics) pointed out that in the Women's Report
there was a suggestion he feels is particularly appropriate and bears
repeating in the discussion on the floor. On page 5, Section II, item 4 which
states, "Undertake a multivariate analysis for gender, race and age bias in
wages and salaries of all University System employees.” As a matter of
record, he pointed out that has been suggested in the document adopted by the
Senate, and maybe does not need to be repeated in the Minority Report, but it
does cover the same issues involved to look at potential pay discrimination
within the University. His suggestion is that with some of the controversy
which arose as a result of the statistical analysis that was part of the
original Women's Report that some experts in the area be included on the
committee that undertakes the task and particularly he suggested perhaps some
labor economists be included in the study of wages. The Chairperson assumed
that Professor Scott was not recommending any specific changes in the report.
Professor Scott stated that he was only making a request that it be recognized
there are those on campus who have Spent their careers doing this, and they

might be brought in to work on such an analysis.

Professor Carolyn Bratt (Law) is not opposed to the inclusion of anyone
with expertise to do the analyses, but she thinks it should be pointed out to
the Senate that the people who were involved in doing the initial Women's
Report were, in fact, trained to do the analysis, although they were trained
in other disciplines. The implication that somehow the folks who were
involved initially, who were Professors Tickamyer and Jones, lacked the
expertise is not correct. She added that does not mean she is disagreeing
with including other people, but she wanted the Senate to be aware there were
professionally trained people working on the report.

Professor Scott stat