xt7t1g0hxm4f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7t1g0hxm4f/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1973-04-23  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 23, 1973 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 23, 1973 1973 1973-04-23 2020 true xt7t1g0hxm4f section xt7t1g0hxm4f    
   
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
  
   
 
   
   
  
 
  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 23, 1973

The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
April 23, 1973, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Adelstein
presided. Members absent: Arnold D. Albright, Lawrence A. Allen, Clifford
Amyx, Charles L. Atcher, Dwight Auvenshine*, Roger W. Barbour*, James R. Barclay*,
Charles E. Barnhart, Robert P. Belin*, Thomas G. Berry*, Robert H. Biggerstaff,
Norman F. Billups*, Wesley J. Birge*, Harry M. Bohannan*, Louis L. Boyarsky*,
Charles A. Brindel*, Sally Brown, William R. Brown, Herbert Bruce*, Joseph A.
Bryant*, Lowell P. Bush*, Ralph S. Carpenter, S. K. Chan*, Richard A. Chapman,
David B. Clark*, Lewis Colten*, Jose M. Concon*, Larry N. Craft*, Glenwood L.
Creech, James E. Criswell*, Guy M. Davenport, William H. Dennen*, Anthony
Eardley, William Ecton, Robert 0. Evans*, Jeannette Fallen*, Claude Farley*,
Juanita Fleming*, Lawrence E. Forgy, Paul Freytag, George H. Gadbois, Eugene
Gallagher*, Jess L. Gardner*, Willie A. Gates, John G. Gattozzié Richard E.
Gift*, James W. Gladden*, Thomas C. Gray*, Jack B. Hall, Pierce Hamblin,
Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Maurice A. Hatch, Charles F. Haywood*,
Eileen Heise*, James W. Herron*, Andrew J. Hiatt*, Alfred S. L. Hu, Eugene
Huff? Raymon D. Johnson, Margaret Jones*, Fred E. Justus*, Irving F. Kanner*,
John E. Keller*, James D. Kemp*, James B. Kincheloe, Robert G. Lawson, Harold
Leggett, Arthur Lieber, John H. Lienhard*, Donald L. Madden*, Maurice K.
Marshall, Leslie L. Martin, William L. Matthews, David Mattingly*, Marcus T.
McEllistrem? Michael P. McQuillen*, George E. Mitchell, Alvin L. Morris,
Thomas P. Mullaney*, Vernon A. Musselman*, Brenda Oldfield, Bruce O'Reilly,
Michael Pease*, Bertram Peretz, Alan R. Perreiah*, N. J. Pisacano, Virginia
Rogers, Gerald I. Roth, Wimberley C. Royster*, Robert W. Rudd*, Betty R. Rudnick,
John S. Scarborough*, Donald S. Shannon, D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A. Singletary*,
Earl L. Steele, Alan Stein*, John B. Stephenson, Hugh A. Storrow, Dennis
Stuckey*, Lawrence X. Tarpey*, H. Mac Vandiviere*, Stephen J. Vasek, Lenore
Wagner, M. Stanley Wall, David R. Wekstein*, Scott Wendelsdorf*, Harry E. Wheeler,
Harold Willoughby, William W. Winternitz, Ernest F. Witte*, A. Wayne Wonderley*,
Donald J. Wood,Leon Zolondek, Robert G. Zumwinkle.

The Chairman called on Mr. Howell Hopson, Secretary, Senate Council, to
proceed with presentation of Recommendation 14. of the Jewell Report, the
point at which the Senate had voted to adjourn at the preceding meeting.
This Recommendation speaks to the composition of the Senate Council.

Mr. Hopson stated that Recommendation 14. would be presented in three parts,
each part to be voted on separately.

On behalf of the Senate Council Mr. Hopson presented as the first part a
motion that the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice President

of the Medical Center be added as members of the Senate Council (as recommended
by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council), and that these two Vice
Presidents be given the privilege of appointing designees for meetings they

are unable to attend (not recommended by the Jewell Report).

Two Senators spoke against this motion stating they would prefer that academic
administrators be elected to the Council by the University Senate in the
same manner the Senate Council members are elected.

The Senate voted to disapprove this part of Recommendation 14.

*Absence explained

 Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont 3542

The second part of Recommendation 14. spoke to these two Vice Presidents
being granted voting privileges and was not presented since the first part
had been disapproved by the Senate.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson then presented as the third part

a motion that the Senate Council continue to be composed of nine faculty mem—
bers elected by the faculty of the University Senate, and two student members
elected by and from the newly elected student members of the Senate (as it is
at present), and that the Council also include the faculty and student mem—
bers of the Senate (as it is at present), and that the Council also include
the faculty and student members of the Board of Trustees who will serve ex
officio as non—voting members. This was a departure from the Jewell Report
which had recommended that the Senate Council consist of ten elected faculty
members £2_bg apportioned among the colleges according'tgféfdesignated pattern.

 

Dr. Jewell stated that on behalf of the Committee he wished to present a
substitute motion to accept the proposal contained in the Jewell Report of
February 25, 1973, page 12, paragraph 6, but excluding the inclusion of the
two Vice Presidents which had already been voted down by the Senate.

Dr. Stuart Forth, Director of the Libraries, called to the attention of
the Senate the omission of the division of Libraries in the groups of
colleges or parts of colleges that the Jewell Report had recommended in
its apportionment; and he presented an amendment to the substitute motion
that Libraries be included in the apportionment of one representative from
Architecture, Law, Social Professions, Home Economics.

The Senate approved this amendment to the substitute motion.

The Senate then returned to discussion of Dr. Jewell's substitute motion,
as amended.

Several Senators rose to speak against the substitute motion to the effect that
the chance of obtaining leaders in the Senate Council would be no greater with
either plan; that the Senate would be running the risk of having a parochial
representation, that is, having a Council member who would assume responsibility
for some given segment of the University which would, in turn, hold him res—
ponsible for his action in behalf of that segment, as opposed to the present
system where each Senator on the Senate Council serves the total University

as his personal constituency.

By a hand count of 47 to 44 the Senate voted against Dr. Jewell's substitute
motion, as amended.

Motion was then made to amend the original proposal to allow the student member
of the Board of Trustees to appoint a designee to represent him or her on the
Senate Council. This motion was defeated by the Senate.

Motion was made to amend the original proposal to insert the phrase ". . .and
two voting academic administrators to be elected by the voting administrators
0f the Senate . . ." so that Recommendation 14. would read:

The Senate Council shall be composed of nine faculty members elected
by the faculty of the University Senate, two student members elected
by and from the newly elected student members of the Senate, and two

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
   
   
   
   
  
 
  
   
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
   

if 5 3543 Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont

1

fr , ‘ voting academic administrators to be elected by the voting adminis-
] trators of the Senate. In addition to these voting members, the
Council will also include the faculty and student members of the

Board of Trustees, who will serve ex officio as non—voting members. 6%.!

By a hand count of 46 to 41 the Senate defeated the proposed amendment to
the original motion.

The Senate then accepted the original motion as presented by Mr. Hopson which
retains the status guo and reads:

The Senate Council shall be composed of nine faculty members elected

by the faculty of the University Senate, and two student members elected
by and from the newly elected student members of the Senate. In addition
to these voting members, the Council will also include the faculty and
student members of the Board of Trustees, who will serve ex officio

d ' as non—voting members.

fin , On the basis of the action taken on Recommendation 14., it was determined ‘
fi i i that no action was necessary on Recommendation 15. which speaks to the terms * ‘
F 1 ’T _ of office of the Senate Council and will remain as it presently exists.

1

I

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 16., which speaks to the composition of the Undergraduate
Council, be approved as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council
with the exception that the Senate Council has removed the members of the Law
College since it felt that they are not involved in undergraduate teaching and
therefore should not serve on the Undergraduate Council.

The Senate then approved Recommendation 16. as presented which reads as follows:

The Undergraduate Council shall be composed of nine elected and two
appointed faculty members and two students. The nine members will be
elected by the faculty of colleges, groups of colleges or parts of
colleges as follows:

— Arts and Sciences: Literature, Philosophy and the Arts m
- Arts and Sciences: Biological and Physical Sciences

— Arts and Sciences: Social Sciences

- Agriculture

Education

— Engineering

— Business and Economics

— Architecture, Social Professions, Home Economics

— Allied Health, Nursing, Pharmacy

 

 

 

HIAIAIAIAIAIAIA H
I

l

l I

F; The two faculty and two student appointments will be made by the Dean
{Lj V of Undergraduate Studies with the advice and consent of the Under—
‘(f graduate Council.
f

V

t

 

.fié : On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
'V] 1 - Recommendation 17., which speaks to the terms of office of the Undergraduate £?!~
1”‘ ' Council, be approved as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council.

  

 Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont 3544

The Senate approved Recommendation 17. as presented which reads as follows:

The members of the Undergraduate Council shall be elected in the
spring semester and shall take office on September 1.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 18., which speaks to the purge rule of the Senate, be approved
as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council. This Recommendation
reads:

The purge rule shall be abolished.

The Senate defeated this motion by a hand count of 41 to 35; therefore the purge
rule remains in the Rules of the University Senate.

 

 

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 19., which speaks to Senate Calendar procedure, be approved
as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council with the exception
that the Senate Council has allowed for Senate review of the Calendar.

The Senate approved Recommendation 19. as presented which reads as follows:

The Senate shall adopt policies for the University calendar. The
Registrar shall implement these policies and shall circulate with
Senate Council approval a calendar three years in advance of fall
registration. If three Senators object to the proposed calendar
within ten days of circulation, then it shall be placed on the
Senate agenda for action.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 20., which speaks to budget information responsibility of the
Senate Council, be approved as recommended by the Senate Council.

Dr. Jewell stated that on behalf of the Committee he wished to present a
substitute motion as follows:

The Senate Council shall invite the President to provide the Senate
with information annually about its general academic policies and
priorities that are established in the budget.

In speaking to this amendment he said the Committee felt that if the Adminis-
tration were apprised of the Senate's concern about having this information
and if the Administration were invited to provide it, this was all that was
required.

The Chairman then reported that a special meeting of the Senate was being
called for Monday, April 30, 1973, at 3:00 p.m., in the Court Room of the
Law Building, at which time the President would address the Senate concerning
budgetary matters; that it was hoped this would not extend beyond 4:00 p.m.
in order to allow affected Senators to attend the Arts and Sciences College
meeting scheduled at that hour.

The Senate then approved the substitute motion as presented by Dr. Jewell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont

The Chairman stated that the Senate Council had accepted the remaining
recommendations proposed in the Jewell Report, to wit:

1) The Senate Council shall produce and distribute a booklet on the
Academic Policies of the University.

2) The Senate Council and the appropriate Senate committees shall
initiate studies and make recommendations to the Senate about estab—
lishing policies regarding significant academic questions of concern
to more than a single college.

3) The Senate shall give continuing attention to the question of
priorities among the various responsibilities and programs of the
University. It shall establish guidelines and criteria to be used by
the Senate and its councils and committees in making recommendations
concerning the adoption, improvement, and review of academic programs.

4) The Senate should clarify the requirements for first degrees
offered by the University in terms of hours and grade standards.

and that the Senate Council would try to implement these recommendations, as

well as the 20 Recommendations on which the University Senate had taken action,

as quickly as possible; that it had decided to try and apportion the Senate
in the fall of 1973 according to the new apportionment regulations rather than
wait another year.

Chairman Adelstein stated that he wanted to thank Dr. Jewell and other members
of his Committee personally, on behalf of the Senate Council, and on behalf
of the Senate, for an excellent Report.

The Chairman then moved to the next item on the agenda, that of a reso—
lution which had been circulated to the faculty under date of March 27, 1973,
and which had been held over to this meeting of the Senate.

He then called on Mr. Mark Paster, a student Senator, who presented the
Resolution as follows:

"Be it resolved that the University Senate request that the appropriate
University officials make every possible effort to make available to
Student Advisory Committees office space wherever and whenever possible.
Preferably this office space should be located as close as possible to
the offices of the College or Department with which the Student Advisory
Committee is affiliated.

"The University Senate Advisory Committee on Student Affairs shall
annually review and report to the University Senate on the implemen-
tation of this action and suggest what, if any, further action it
deems appropriate."

The Senate accepted the Resolution, as presented.
The Chairman moved to the last item on the agenda, that of the report

of the Academic Ombudsman, Dr. John Madden. The Chairman stated that Dr.
Madden had served the University for the past year in,a most effective manner

 
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
    
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
    
   
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
  
  
  
 

  

 Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont 3546

and that both the Senate and the University owed him a vote of thanks for
the many hours of great effort he had put into his job. He then called on
Dr. Madden who presented the following report.

I have been pleased by the cooperation extended to me by a
majority of the students, faculty, and the administration of the
University. I have found that even when relationships were strained,
there has been a general effort by all involved parties to reach a
satisfactory solution to the conflict.

I have viewed the function of the office as one primarily
concerned with mediation of academic disputes as opposed to
arbitration or investigation of academic disputes. My normal
operating procedure has been first to meet personally with the
student to hear his complaint; and then to make a judgment as to
whether or not the complaint falls within the confines of the
Ombudsman's office as indicated by the "Code". If the complaint
fell within the general guidelines, I either referred it back to
the instructor or appropriate parties, or met personally with the
other parties involved. As of last Friday, April 20th, this office
had received 237 academic complaints, of which 131 were classified
as contact cases requiring three or more meetings between myself
and the conflicting parties. It is my judgment that 87 of the 131
cases were resolved to the general satisfaction of all of the par-
ties involved; 14 were unresolved, but with influence —— that is
without immediate redress for the students involved, but with some
assurance that the situation would be corrected —— that 20 were
unresolved and without influence; and that 10 were pending. The
131 cases were distributed among the colleges in the following
manner: in the College of Arts and Sciences there were 60 cases,
six in the College of Agriculture, six in the College of Engineering,
21 in the College of Education, six in the College of Business and
Economics, three in the College of Home Economics, 14 in the Graduate
School, and a total of 15 in the professional colleges.

The 131 cases, may, for the sake of simplicity, be divided
into three basic categories: those primarily concerned with
grades; those primarily concerned with general instructions; and
those concerned with general administrative matters.

The most numerous complaints, as has been the case in the last
three reports, were those under the general category of grades.
Those listed under complaints concerning course standards, improper
judgment relative to exams, and course content, led the list with
34 complaints. One of the major difficulties in this particular
area seemed to be either an ignorance on the part of the instructor,
of the Rules of the University Senate relative to information con—
cerning course—content and standards, or a lack of understanding on
the part of the instructor as to what constituted the course, the
general weight of the exams, and/or term papers, and other factors
that might influence the grading process. The information did not
have to be specific, but the students did have a right to expect
some indication concerning these general standards at the beginning
of the semester. Often, there was a general misunderstanding, perhaps
What we might call a "communication gap", between the instructor and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
  
    
  
    
    
    
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
    
   
  
   
  
   
   
  
    
  
   

 

m.__—m:1:~

 

 

3547 Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont

 

the student, particularly when it came to questions concerning
judgment relative to an exam. Usually a referral back to the
instructor would solve the problem. Often, however, it required
a third meeting between the student, the instructor and myself,
and on occasions the department chairman, to resolve the problem.

There were eighteen cases involving the Withdrawal, the Pass—
Fail and the Incomplete. The Pass-Fail difficulties, in all cases,
originated in the registration process. The withdrawal conflict
constituted a more serious problem and is now under review by the
Rules Committee. The major difficulty was that a large percentage
of the faculty did not follow the rules governing withdrawals;
consequently, the more lax interpretation had become the accepted
norm. On the other hand, there were those who seemed overzealous
in the interpretation, as in the case of the instructor who gave a
"WE" to a student the fourth week of the semester because the student
had failed to turn in a homework assignment.

The change in the Incomplete (i.e., allowing the "I” to remain
on the transcript indefinitely) which became effective August 15,
1972 has been an effective grade. The "I" has, however, also been
used by some instructors as a substitute for the "W".

There were seven cases of alleged discrimination of grades based
on something other than classroom performance. These particular
complaints constituted some of the most intensive mediation. It was
nearly impossible to come to a definitive conclusion relative to these
cases, but I'm pleased to say that five of the seven were resolved
to the general satisfaction of all of the parties involved.

The problem of plagiarism and cheating constituted 17 of the
total cases. The difficulties with these cases stemmed not so much
from the fact of guilt but rather from the severity of the punishment.
In all of the cases but one, we were able to work out a satisfactory
resolution to the disagreement.

One of the most difficult problems was that of the mysterious
disappearance of exams and term papers shortly after being submitted
by students. In one case several hundred papers had been destroyed
two days after the exam was administered. In another case three sets
of term papers were lost consecutively by one instructor. There is,
in fact, no specific regulation relative to the retention of exams
and term papers. However, it seems that a student's right to know the
basis of his grade is relevant here. It is quite impossible for a
student to know the basis of his grade, if the term paper or the final
exam is not available for discussion. So, I would suggest that this is
an area where we need to place some emphasis.

There were 22 cases involving general instruction problems,
other than grades. Of these, some of the most dissatisfaction con—
cerning instruction was lack of instructor attendance. There were
several cases where the instructor had not attended class for three
or more consecutive class periods without advance notification or
explanation for his absence.

  

     
 
 
 
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
   
   
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
   
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
   

Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont

One of the troublesome areas, which I am not sure that I-

handled very well, was the problem of complacency. In the case

of uninspiring instruction there was little I could do but listen
sympathetically. On the other hand, where there was clear evidence
of complacency, such as the instructor who chose not to grade the
final exam because it interfered with his other duties, positive
action was taken by the department chairman. I am pleased to note
that department chairmen generally are aware of these difficulties
and hopefully the number of complaints will decline in the future.

There continues to be the problem resulting from changes in
college and departmental programs and the effect that these changes
have on students during the transition period is often negative.

This particular difficulty, of which there were six cases, is currently
being reviewed by a University committee and I trust that a "general"
solution will be forthcoming.

The final instructional category concerns discrimination against
students in areas other than grades. There were only five of these,
but they were the most difficult that the office was involved in. They
were resolved to the satisfaction of this office, but not necessarily
to the satisfaction of all of the parties involved. There has been
a continued discussion and inquiries relative to two of the cases and
I believe that we have made some progress.

There were 22 cases under general administrative difficulties,
seven cases of exam scheduling conflicts, six cases of transfer
disputes, and seven cases of arbitrary bureaucratic road blocks.
Bureaucratic road blocks seemed to me to be the most difficult general
administrative problem, particularly a case where the head of the unit
had approved a particular course of action only to have it altered by
someone else in the unit. However, with a little patience we were
generally able to skirt that particular issue.

In addition to the recommendations made previously, not only in
this report, but in others that I have made to the Senate Council, I
would like to suggest the following:

(1) That the Senate Council consider a rule relative to the
holding of final exams for at least one semester.

(2) That departmental chairmen remind their respective
faculties at the beginning of each school year of the
course content and standard clauses of the "Code". If
you have not read these recently, I would suggest that you
do so.

(3) That with the significant increases in cases involving the
graduate and professional schools, these faculties attempt
to examine the root cause of some of the complaints.

I would like once again to thank the corporate body of the University

for its cooperation. Although this report may seem to have a negative
view when viewed from the totality of the University, I believe that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

3549

    
    
   
 
  
   
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
  
 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont

dealing with academic problems which confront us. Thank you.

E

iii; we have made considerable progress over the last three years in A

. 6%
I

i There being no questions following his report the Senate adjourned at

f 4:30 p.m.
i Elbert W. Ockerman
§ Secretary , .
MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 30, 1973
The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, “E3”

April 30, 1973, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Adelstein
presided. Members absent: Staley F. Adams*, Arnold D. Albright, Lawrence A.
Allen, Harry H. Bailey*, James R. Barclay*, Charles E. Barnhart, Robert P.
Belin*, Thomas G. Berry, Robert H. Biggerstaff, Norman F. Billups*, Harold R.
Binkley*, Harry M. Bohannan, Robert N. Bostrom, Louis L. Boyarsky*, Garnett L.
Bradford*, Sally Brown, Lowell P. Bush*, S. K. Chan, David B. Clark*,

Lewis W. Cochran, Lewis Colten, José M. Concon, Glenwood, L. Creech, Guy M.
Davenport, Susan J. DeBrecht, George W. Denemark*, George A. Digenis*,

R. Lewis Donohew, Ray H. Dutt, Paul M. Eakin, Anthony Eardley, William Ecton,
William D. Ehmann*, Robert 0. Evans*, Jeanette Fallen, Claude Farley, 7
Thomas R. Ford, Stuart Forth*, Michael B. Freeman, James E. Funk*, R. Fletcher

Gabbard*, George H. Gadbois, Jess L. Gardner*, Willie A. Gates, John G.

Gattozzi, Thomas C. Gray, Jack B. Hall, Pierce Hamblin, Joseph Hamburg,

Charles F. Haywood*, Eileen Heise, James W. Herron, Andrew J. Hiatt,

Alfred S. L. Hu, Eugene Huff, Margaret Jones*, William S. Jordan*, Fred E.

Justus, John E. Keller*, Harold Laswell*, Robert G. Lawson, Harold Leggett,

Donald L. Madden*, David Mattingly, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Michael P. HERA
McQuillen*, George E. Mitchell*, Alvin L. Morris*, Brenda Oldfield, Blaine F.

Parker*, Bobby C. Pass, J. W. Patterson*, Michael Pease, Bertram Peretz*,

Alan R. Perreiah*, N. J. Pisacano*, William K. Plucknett, Virginia Rogers*,

Gerald I. Roth, Michael J. Ryan, John S. Scarborough, George W. Schwert,

Donald S. Shannon, D. Milton Shuffett, Eldon D. Smith, Robert H. Spedding*,

Earl L. Steele*, Alan Stein, Dennis Stuckey, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Lawrence X.

; ‘, Tarpey*, Nancy Totten*, H. Mac Vandiviere*, Stephen J. Vasek, Jacinto J.

ENE. ; Vazquez*, Lenore Wagner, William F. Wagner*, M. Stanley Wall, Scott

1?; ‘ Wendelsdorf, Raymond A. Wilkie, Harold Willoughby, Miroslava B. Winer*,

!:‘“ - William W. Winternitz, A. Wayne Wonderley*, Donald J. Wood, Leon Zolondek*,

Robert G. Zumwinkle*.

 

 

 

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 1973 were approved
as circulated with a correction of the first paragraph at the top of

page 5 to read: «A

The majority of each Subcommittee of the Senate, whether established
on a permanent or ad hoc basis, shall consist of members of the
Senate.

 

  

*Absence explained

 UNIVERSITY SENATE
April 23, 1973

AGENDA

Recommendation for approval of Jewell Report, picking up at
Recommendation 14. — Mr. Howell Hopson

Recommendation for approval of SAC request for office space (circulated
to faculty under date of March 27, 1973) — Mr. Hopson

Report of Academic Ombudsman — Dr. John Madden

 

 URHVERSHW’OFW(ENTUCKY

LiLAN OF ADMISSIONS AND REGISTRAR
J

April? _.- , 1973

President Singletary“

4-

«1

4L0 op Lial meeting 0f vail 23 “ the Universi’y Senate
" rwbolution presented by Mr. Mar astern a student
iution reads as £31.10w32

Senator .

r‘i“
.L

ne University Senate Advivorv m
Affairs shall annually review and repo
”Laate on the implememta"
if

anyfi further action 1'

Elbéit W.

Ockerman
See” a. etc. ’ r'r,
we; / a?”

University Senate

/
cc: Cnairnan, Senate Council L
Mr. Mark Faster

 

 Academic Ombudsman‘s Report
to the University Senate

Spring 1973

I have been pleased by the cooperation extended to me
by a majority of the students, faculty, and administration of
the University; and I have found that even when relationships
were strained, there has been a general effort by all involved
parties to reach a satisfactory solution to the conflict.

I have viewed the function of the office as one pri-

marily concerned with mediation of academic disputes as op—

. Vi" . . 3“ . .
posed to an arbitrator or investigator of academic disputes.
_ '\K

My normal operating procedure has been toifirstbmeet personally
with the student to hear his complaint, and then to make a
judgement as to whether or not the complaint falls within the
confines of the Ombudsman's office as indicated by the "Code".
If the complaint fell within the general guidewlines, I either
referred it back to the instructor or other appropriate parties,
or met personally with the other parties involved. As of last
Friday)KApril 20th?, this office ha? received 237 academic
complaints, of which 131 were classified as contact cases
requiring three or more meetings between mySelf and the con-
flicting parties. It is my Judgimentfithatf 87 of the 131

13x

cases were resolved to the general satisfaction of all of the

\ ‘ '

VF . .
parties involved; fourteen~were unresolved, but With influence,

 

 2

rithat is without immediate redress for the students involved,
but with some assurance that the situation would be corrected);
that twenty were unresolved and without influence; and that r
teh were pendingycases. The 131 cases were distributed among
the colleges in the following manner: in the College of Arts
and Science3there were sixty cases, six in the College of
Agriculture, six in the College of Engineering, twenty—one in
the College of Education, six in the College of Business and
Economics, three in the College of Home Economics, fourteen in
the Graduate School, and a total of fifteen in the professional
colleges.

The 131 casesiymayéfor the sake of simplicity, be
divided into three basic catggories: those primarily concerned

with grades; those primarily concerned with general instructions;

and those concerned with general administrative matters.
(1')...“ ‘1’} , j' " ‘,‘ ~1/n; w" ,‘v

.5igg5flhe most numerous complaints were those under the general
catagory of grades. Those listed under complaints concerning

course standards, improper judgement rel

ative to exams, and
K.

course content, led the list with thirty-four complaints. One

of the major difficulties_in this particular area seemed to be

‘4‘! v‘ "‘..'1».\
(My.

either an ignorancedof the fihles of the "University Senatemw

relative to information concerning course content and standards)
or a lack of understanding on the part of the instructor as to
what constituted the course, the general weight of the exams,
and/or term papers, and other factors that might be included

gfi’the grading process. The information did not have to be

 

 specific, but the students did have a right to expect some
indication concerning these general standards at the begin-
ning of the semester. Often, there was just a general mis-
understanding, perhaps what we might c