xt7tdz032g8t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tdz032g8t/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1980-05-05  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, May 5, 1980 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, May 5, 1980 1980 1980-05-05 2020 true xt7tdz032g8t section xt7tdz032g8t UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


Membe rs, University Senate

The University Senate will meet on Monday, May 5, 1980, at 3:00 p.m., in

Room CB




University Senate Minutes, March 14, 1980.

Memorial Resolutions

Action Items:

a) Proposed additons to University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2. 0.
Admission Requirements, (Landscape Architecture), circulated
under date of April 18, 1980.

b) Proposed addtions to University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2. 0.

Admission Requirements, (College of Business and Economics),
circulated under date of April 22, 1980.

Elbe rt W. Ocke rman
Sec retary

NOTE: Whenever possible, amendments or motions relative to agenda items
on the floor of the Senate for action should be presented to the presiding officer
in writing bythe person(s) proposing said amendments or motions prior to the
opening of the Senate meeting.




The University Senate met in a called session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, May 5, 1980,
in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

Joseph Krislov, Chairman, presiding

,Members absent: Rusty Ashcraft*, Albert S. Bacdayan, Lyle Back, Charles E. Barnhart,
James C. Beidleman, Janis L. Bellack*, John J. Bernardo, Brack A. Bivins, Jack C.
Blanton, James A. Boling*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Carolyn P. Brock, J. Michael Brooks*,
Barbara Bryant, Joseph T. Burch, Joe B. Buttram, Michael D. Carpenter, W. Merle Carter,
Patricia Cegelka*, Donald B. Clapp, Bob Clark, Charlotte Clark, D. Kay Clawson, Jane B.
Clay, William Cohen, James S. Cole, Glenn B. Collins, William L. Conger, Samuel F.

Conti, Margaret Cornell, Emmett R. Costich, Clifford J. Cremers*, James E. Criswell,
Lynne Crutcher, Robert Culbertson, Scott Davis, George W. Denemark*, David E. Denton*,
Philip A. DeSimone*, Ronald C. Dillehay, Richard C. Domek, Joseph M. Dougherty, Herbert
Drennon, Roland Duell, Phillip Duncan, Anthony Eardley, Roger Eichhorn, Dave Elder, Lee
A. Elioseff, Kevin Ellis, Jane Emanuel, Joseph Engelberg, Graeme Fairweather, Robin
Farrar, Jana Floyd, Paul G. Forand, Edward G. Foree, Walter C. Foreman, Tom Francis,
Joseph Fugate, Art Gallaher, Jess L. Gardner, John H. Garvey, Jon P. Gockerman, Steve
Goldstein, Mitch Griffin, Andrew J. Grimes, George W. Gunther*, Robert D. Guthrie,
Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Virgil W. Hays*, Carl E. Henrickson, Raymond R. Hornback,
Alfred S. L. Hu, Freddie James, Dean Jaros, Keith H. Johnson*, Wesley H. Jones, John J.
Just, Richard I. Kermode, Edward J. Kifer, Jane Kotchen, Gretchen LaGodna*, Stephen
Langston, Donald C. Leigh, Thomas P. Lewis*, Paul Mandelstam*, William L. Matthews*,
Marcus T. McEllistrem, Marion E. McKenna*, Mark Metcalf, Ernest Middleton, Phillip W.
Miller, John M. Mitchell, Philip J. Noffsinger*, Merrill W. Packer*, Chester L. Parker,
Alan R. Perreiah, Jean Pival, Anne Policastri, Deborah E. Powell*, E. Douglas Rees,
Herbert G. Reid*, Frank J. Rizzo, Paul Roark, Charles Rowell, Robert W. Rudd, Pritam S.
Sabharwal, Gerardo Saenz, John S. Scarborough, Robert G. Schwemm, George W. Schwert,
Eugenie C. Scott*, Ronald J. Seymour*, Chris G. Shaw, Gary Shenton, D. Milton Shuffett*,
Otis A. Singletary*, Julie Skaggs, John T. Smith, Gerald Slatin, Harry A. Smith, Tim
Smith, Wade C. Smith, David A. Spaeth, Charles S. Spiegel*, Sheldon M. Steiner, Ralph

E. Steuer, Marjorie S. Stewart*, Lee T. Todd, Harold H. Traurig, Kevin Vaughn, M. Stanley
Wall, Marc J. Wallace*, Angene Wilson, M. O'Neal Weeks*, Kennard W. Wellons, H. David
Wilson*, Ralph F. Wiseman*

The approval of the minutes for the meeting on April 14, 1980, was postponed until
September 8, 1980.

Chairman Krislov recognized Professor Thomas Clark who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Dr. Martin Marshall White.

Martin Marshall White, 1904-1980

Each generation in a university's history owes its
triumphs and shortcomings to human beings who comprise its
faculty and administration. Always there are individuals
who stand out from the crowd, and who go well beyond the
mere call of duty in dedicating their lives to institutional
welfare. The University of Kentucky stands deeply indebted
to individuals who in the past have served it with faith—
fulness. It owes none greater appreciation than Martin

*Absence explained



Marshall White, who joined its faculty in 1930 as an assistant
professor in psychology. For two years previous to that date he
had held a comparable position in the University of Oklahoma.

At Kentucky young Professor White made rapid advancement into
the rank of professor in the space of three years, and in 1941 he
succeeded Professor H. B. Minor as Head of the Department of

Martin Marshall White was a Texan, born in Kyle, September 23,
1904. He was the son of Judge Martin Mullins and Jane Carpenter
White. He kept well concealed the fact that he was a direct descen—
dant of the Marshall and Todd families of Virginia and Kentucky.

He graduated from the Temple, Texas, High School in 1923, and was
awarded both the bachelor of Arts and the Master of Arts degrees
from the University of Texas in 1926 and 1928 respectively. He
was awarded the doctorate in psychology by the University of
Chicago in 1930. In his academic career he was elected membership
into Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, and Omicron Delta Kappa.

In his personality Martin White reflected many of the influ—
ences of his Texas background. He had a keen sense of humor, at
times bordering on puckishness, but he could at once be staunch
and forthright in defense of what he conceived to be just and right.
He abhorred social and political climbing, and most of all discrimi—
nation against individuals and social groups. In demeanor he was
democratic, and at all times revealed a deep dedication to the
puritanical ethic of work and promptitude.

Despite his years of service as an administrator Martin White.
was at heart a classroom teacher. He successfully challenged
succeeding generations of students to shuck off old prejudices and
provincial folk—ways to take a broader view of life. He provoked
them into re—examining the old and fixed values which they and their
parents had held sacred for generations, and to fully assessing
any new ones they might adopt. He had the enviable capacity to
shock many students out of their lethargy, to bring to the surface
their inner strengths and resources, and to broaden their views
and perspective of life.

No colleague knew the hours Martin White spent in counseling
his own and the other fellows' students. By the same token they
never knew how many trifling ones he forced, like the wandering
Bedouins, to dismantle their tattered academic tents and wander
back into the waste lands of abismal ignorance from which they had
sprung. On a happier note there is not recorded how many laggard
souls he helped to snatch back from the brink of failure and

Martin White was elected by his colleagues to Succeed Paul
Prentice Boyd as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. In that
year the University of Kentucky was in a period of deep—seated
transition. Not only did the entry of World War II veterans demand
that the institution offer instruction of a high order, it faced the
even greater institutional challenge of raising itself to new and
more productive qualitative levels. Every department in the
University, and especially those in the College of Arts and Sciences,



cried out for material strengthening by the addition of scholarly
and aggressive young staff members. These were years of constant
searching for such talent. The Dean of the College became a
central figure in this period of growth and solidification. In
his quiet but persistent manner Dean Martin White stimulated many
departmental heads to strengthen and revitalize both their teach—
ing and research programs. He fiercely defended his college
against administrative pressures and political interferences.
Conversely he defended his colleagues against many of their acts
of academic self-defeat.

Martin White was a self—effacing man who often stood in his
own light behind a gruff manner. He opposed social and racial
injustices without crying out in raucous attention—attracting
crusades, a fact recognized by the outside public. He was active
in the local affairs of the National Conference of Christians and
Jews, the Fayette County Relief Fund, and the Kentucky Society
for the Handicapped. He served as President of the Lexington
Kiwanis Club in 1966, and worked assiduously in its fireworks
program which collected funds for various social causes. He was
a member, and president, of the Informal and Torch discussional
clubs. In 1978 he was recipient of the University's prestigious
Sullivan Medallion in recognition of his humanitarian contributions
to the Commonwealth.

No member of the University Family was a more devoted husband
and father. He was married in 1928 to Dorritt Stumburg of
Missouri, a graduate of Smith College and recipient of the doc-
torate in psychology from the University of Chicago. Their
children are Dorritt Jean White Reinsdorf of Dalgren, Virginia,
and Martin Kurt White of Ashland, Kentucky. Their grandson is
Marshall Reinsdorf of Richmond, Virginia.

As Dean of the mother college of the University Dean White
had the courage and foresight to compare the University with other
institutions of kindred purpose and status, and to acknowledge
shortcomings. From his position as Dean he spotted and punctured
the show of pomposity on the part of professors and administrators.
He often directed attention to achievements of worth of modest
colleagues, and search out the strengths of the institution. He
agonized over the fact that many students of promise were forced
to drift through the institution bored for lack of imaginative
teaching. To him classroom performance took precedence over all
other university responsibility.

The White era in the University of Kentucky was one of growth
and changing institutional approaches. The Dean left subtle marks
on the entire institutional program. His happiest monument, however,
was the fact that thousands of Kentucky's graduates profited from
his near fanatical belief that good teaching and an atmosphere of
academic freedom of enquiry were primary institutional objectives.

(Prepared by Dr. Thomas D. Clark, Professor Emeritus, History Department)



Chairman Krislov directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
that copies be provided to members of the family. The Senators were asked to stand for
a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Martin Marshall White.

The Chair recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of
the proposed additions to University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2.0, Admissions Require—
ments, Landscape Architecture. This proposal was circulated to members of the University
Senate under date of April 18, 1980.


The floor was opened for questions and discussion. There was no discussion and
Professor Parsons moved the previous question, which was seconded and passed. The
proposal to limit enrollment in the Landscape Architecture program passed and reads as


On June 20, 1979, the College of Agriculture circulated
the attached proposal to limit enrollment in the Landscape
Architecture program.

The proposal was presented orally at the April meeting
of the University Senate and has been approved by the College
Faculty, the Undergraduate Council, the Senate Committee on
Admissions and Academic Standards and the Senate Council.

2.19 Admission to the College of Agriculture, Professional
Program of Landscape Architecture.

Admission to the University and the College of Agriculture
does not guarantee admission to the Landscape Architecture
Program. All applicants must apply to the Landscape Archi-
tecture Program Chairman. The number of applicants ultimately
admitted is determined by the resources available to provide
high quality instruction. Applicants will be reviewed on a
comparative basis. Determination of acceptability into the
Program is based on the following.


Entering freshmen must meet the minimum criteria
for admission to the University as specified by the
Senate Council.

The probability of their success in a professional
program in Landscape Architecture shall be predicted
by aptitude testing mechanisms. The following are
informative tools with reliable forecasts of poten-
tial student success:

(a) "The Architectural School Aptitude Test"
(section II, III, IV, V, and VII)

Watson Glaser ”Critical Thinking Appraisal”

Differential Aptitude Test ”Spatial Relations”
and ”Abstract Reasoning"


 The faculty continually appraises reliability of these
tests and may substitute others as necessary.

Students are required to submit statements as to their
understanding of the profession of Landscape Architecture
and reasons for pursuing this career. In cases of tied

or very close scores on the above testing, these state—
ments may be used to determine the greater level of poten-~
tial success or an interview may be required.

Freshman candidates must submit a formal application to
the Professional Program in Landscape Architecture by
February 1, for admission to the program in the follow—
ing fall semester.


Applicants from other programs will be evaluated in order of
priority on the following criteria:

1. Candidates must be eligible for admission or readmission
to the University according to the specified standards set
forth by the Senate Council. The Landscape Architecture
program will require a minimum of a 2.0 grade point average
(on a 4.0 scale) for eligibility to transfer into the pro—

The probability of their success in a professional program
in Landscape Architecture shall be predicted by aptitude
testing mechanisms. The following are informative tools
with reliable forecasts of potential student success:

(a) "The Architectural School Aptitude Test” (sections II,
Til, IV, V, and Vll)

(b) Watson Glaser ”Critical Thinking Appraisal”

(c) Differential Aptitude Test ”Spatial Relations” and
”Abstract Reasoning”

The faculty continually appraises reliability and validity
of these tests and may substitute others as necessary.

Students with a background in related design fields may
submit available work such as a portfolio or other work
examples as an indication of potential success.

Students are required to submit statements as to their
understanding of the profession of Landscape Architecture
and reasons for pursuing this career. In cases of tied
or very close scores on the above testing, these state—
ments may be used to determine the greater level of
potential success.



Transfer students must submit a formal application to
the Landscape Architecture Program by February 1, for
admission to the program in the following semester.


Students in this category will be considered, in order of
priority, on the basis of the following criteria:

1. The student must be eligible for admission into the
University according to the standards specified by the
Senate Council. The Landscape Architecture Program
requires a minimum of a 2.0 grade point average
(on a 4.0 scale) for eligibility to transfer into the

A review of the student's portfolio will determine
acceptance into the program as well as the level to
which they will be accepted.

The combined review of courses completed and the port-
folio will determine acceptance into the program as
well as the level to which they will be accepted.

Transfer students in this category must make formal

application to the Landscape Architecture Program no
later than April 15, for admission in the following

fall, and not later than September 15, for admission
in the following spring semester.



Historic Retrospect

Since its inception, the Landscape Architecture Program
has been faced with ever increasing enrollment requests.
Initial interviews with prospective students, however, have
revealed a wide variety of misunderstanding about the differ—
ence between Ornamental Horticulture, ”Landscaping” (the
popular definition for the placement of trees and shrubs)
and the profession of Landscape Architecture. Approximately
50% of the interviewees are reoriented during these interviews.
The success of those students entering the Landscape Archi—
tecture Program is then determined by aptitude and personal

Architecture 201 and 202 have been used by the Landscape
Architecture Program as an introductory design sequence.
When the College of Architecture established its limited en-
rollment status, 25 students per year were accepted from the
Landscape Architecture Program. With the help of the Testing
and Counseling Center, a series of aptitude testing measures


 were implemented to competitively select the 25 students to
be accepted into the Program. Those testing mechanisms have
been very accurate in predicting the potential success of
students in the Landscape Architecture Program. Academic
expulsion from the program has been greatly reduced. More
important, the personal frustrations and hardships of a
highly motivated student with serious aptitudinal deficien—
cies have been eliminated. Not only has the quality of stu—
dents steadily increased; so has classroom morale and overall
academic achievement.


While the greater role of the University is that of ex—
tending its educational offerings to as many people as possi—
ble; the Landscape Architecture Program must also respond to
the ethical and professional roles which its graduates will
assume in their relationship with society. As in medicine
and other professional fields the qualifications of the
graduate are again evaluated by a state licensing procedure
to determine eligibility to practice that profession.

The role of the Landscape Architect today is a mixture
of the form giving designer a wide array of planning func—
tions involving environmental concerns related to man's
stewardship of the land. The University training needed to
prepare for this role involves the acquisition of a broad
spectrum of knowledge which then focuses on a very intensive
studio/project/jury experience where the decision making
process and design synthesis are evaluated.

The curriculum typically involves several years of pre—
professional training for the acquisition of skills and
information needed before the design process can begin.
Consequently, a shortcoming in certain aptitudes which may
eventually prevent the student from successfully engaging
the task of design, may not be detected until the student
is well into the third year of the program. Prior to the
use of the afore mentioned aptitude screening method, there
were a number of students annually faced with the dilemma
of changing majors at the beginning of their senior year.
It is with the spirit of eliminating these kinds of per—
sonal hardships that the faculty of this program recommends
the adoption of a restricted enrollment policy utilizing
aptitudinal-type testing mechanisms.

The actual number of students to be accepted into the
program will be a function of available resources. The
studio experience is a very intensive tutorial—type inter—
action between student and faculty. While there are a
number of recommended standards for student/faculty ratios,
a studio instructor must be able to spend a minimum of 15
minutes with each student during every class meeting. This
guideline limits the number of students which an instructor
can assist to 12 during a typical 3 hour studio. Ratios of



more than 12 students per instructor very quickly destroy
the studio experience.

Another aspect of resource limits is that of physical
space. Studio class time represents approximately one
fourth of the actual time spent by students on their design
projects. It is therefore critical that each design student
have a permanent work station which is available during and
after normal class time. In fact, the most recent revision
of the American Society of Landscape Architects accredita—
tion standards have made a permanent work station mandatory
for all studios beginning with the sophomore year.

As the role of the profession of Landscape Architecture
continues to grow in the areas of environmental planning
and natural resource management, it is essential that the
educational base becomes more comprehensive and technical in
nature. The Landscape Architect of the future will have less
involvement with a single client and more responsibility in
the public arena of environmental manipulation. This change
will somewhat diminish the intuitive aspects of the design
profession and will emphasize the need for a broader yet
specialized knowledge base.

The effectiveness of Landscape Architects in the future
will be a reflector of the quality of today's academic pro—
gram. Ultimately the quality of this Program will be deter-
mined by its graduates. It is essential that the resources
of the University be made available to thoSe students show—
ing the greatest promise of success. To insure high quality,
the availability of resources should govern the growth of
the Program. It should be a direct response to student de—
mand. In a recent article in U.S. News & World Report,
Landscape Architecture was listed as one of the ten most
promising professions. Publicity such as this generally
produces a substantial increase in inquiries by prospective
students. Over a period of time the demand may generate
additional educational resources and program expansion.
However, the only short positive effect to be realized is
an increase in the quality of students through the use of a
selective admissions mechanism.


At present the primary function of the Landscape
Architecture Program at the University of Kentucky is under—
graduate education. Its success is measured by the effec—
tiveness of graduates and must therefore dedicate its
resources to insure standards of the highest quality. The
proposed selective admissions policy seeks to use any avail—
able means to measure potential for student success in order
to eliminate undue hardships evidenced by very high academic
mortality rates of many similar programs.

NOTE: The proposed additions will be forwarded to the
Rules Committee for codification.


 The chair again recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
approval of the proposed additions to University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2.0.
Admission Requirements, College of Business and Economics. This proposal was circu—
lated to members of the University Senate under date of April 22, 1980.


.The Chair recognized Dean W. W. Ecton for the five amendments to the proposal.
Dean Ecton said that the proposal which was circulated under the date of April 22,
somehow contained the admissions policy as was originally proposed to the faculty
of the College of Business and Economics. During that meeting several amendments were
made. The changes are as follows:

1. Page 2, under ”Transfer applications including.
Item 2 should read ”2.0 grade—point average of at
least 2.5 in the English and pre—major component (see
below) taken.”

Page 2, under Upper Division Admission, the following
sentence should be added to the first paragraph: "Ad—
mission to lower division does not automatically
guarantee admission to upper division.”


Page 3, Item 1, should read, ”Completion of a minimum
of 60 semester hours toward a degree program with a
minimum cumulative grade~point average of 2.5.”

Page 3, Item 2, should read, "Completion of the English
and pre—major component required of all students with—
in the College of Business and Economics with a minimum
grade—point average of 2.5 in the English and pre~
major component.”

Page A, Item 27 under Requirements_For Graduation,
should read, ”A grade—point average of 2.5 in English and
pre-major component required by the College.”


The Chair said that without objection the amendments would be accepted. There was
no objection.

Professor Adelstein made the following amendment:

”This policy will conditionally take effect in the fall
semester, l98l. During that semester, the College of
Business and Economics shall obtain final Senate approval
or terminate its enrollment restriction program. To
enable the Senate to decide on the wisdom of this pro—
gram, the College shall provide such pertinent information
about each of the three departments as their student FTE
enrollments and faculty-student ETE ratios for the past
five years, sophomore grades for the past several years,
and recruiting accomplishments and prospects.”

Professor Adelstein said that the purpose of the motion was to allow the College
to take temporary action to meet its crisis. However, it would force the College to
return to the Senate with additional and more recent information as it became available.
The Chair asked Dean Ecton if he had any objection to the amendment. Dean Ecton
accepted the Adelstein amendment.


 The Chair recognized Dean Elbert Ockerman who spoke on the amendment. Dean
Ockerman said that if he understood Professor Adelstein's amendment he didn't believe
it would do the job that was presently needed. He said that the document which had
been circulated quoted certain statistics which the Registrar's Office did not disagree
with, and they were prepared to work out procedures whereby the policy could be im—
plemented. However, as anyone could readily see, changing the requirements from a 2.0
to a 2.5 changed the whole ballgame. Therefore, the statistics in the proposal are
invalid. Dean Ockerman's contention was that the document as originally proposed and
circulated could not be carefully and fully considered by the Senate. Therefore, a
new document needed to be prepared based on the proposed new criteria in the amendments
submitted by Dean Ecton and the total package be brought back to the Senate at the
appropriate time. The Registrar's Office would be glad to work with the College in
putting the document together, he added. Dean Ockerman said that he was against the
amendment as well as the document as amended by Dean Ecton.

In further discussion, Professor Irwin spoke against the Adelstein amendment.
He said that postponing the 2.5 criteria would not postpone the effectiveness of the
admissions policy for one year. He said there was no problem in the freshman and
sophomore year but in the upper division courses. The 2.5 was aimed at giving the
College some relief in the upper division courses.

Professor Jewell wanted clarification as to when the various rules would go into
effect. He wanted to know if the proposal was passed immediately would the admissions
for the Fall Semester 1981 take effect then and when would the admissions to upper
division courses take effect. Dean Ecton responded that the freshman admissions would
be effective Fall 1981 and restriction on juniors would be effective Fall 1983. The
Chair asked what would be the effect of the Adelstein amendment. Dean Ecton said the
College would take another look at the enrollment in the Fall 1981. Professor Jewell
said that he still didn't know when the proposal would take effect if the implementa—
tion were delayed. Professor Adelstein responded that it would restrict the freshman
class of 1981 and transfer students. The Chair said that he interpreted this as any-
one on campus would be able to proceed under the old program. Dean Ockerman said
that as he saw it the proposal would be implemented in the Fall 1981 unless there
were proposals to stagger the implementation. Professor Adelstein said that permitting
enrollment to be restricted for the freshman in the Fall 1981 did not allow restriction
of juniors and seniors in the Spring 1982.

Dean Ockerman said that he felt the 2.0 would provide relief to the College as
demonstrated in the document which was circulated. However, raising the requirements
according to a sample of 200 out of 780 freshman applicants who have been cleared for
admission for the Fall, would result in 26 percent of the class being denied admission.
The figures on transfer students are even more drastic.

Professor Soule asked if the amendment were adopted and at a future date the
Senate given an opportunity to reconsider, would the proposal still take effect with
the new revised downward grade point average whereby students could select to use the
lower g.p.a. The Chair responded that everyone agreed that students had the right to
select the new program.

Dean Ecton said that the College faculty amended the proposal and made the g.p.a.
2.5. Before the document was Submitted to the Senate Council, a complete study was
made on all the existing juniors and on a sample of the Fall 1979 freshmen. They knew
what the impact on the existing student body would have been. He added that the faculty


 did not just pass the motion, but they had the statistics. There was no further dis—
cussion, and the Adelstein amendment failed.

The Chair recognized Student Senator Bolin for an amendment. Senator Bolin said that
on the matter of the Business and Economics proposal the complexion of the University
was being changed. He asked what the intent and effect of the requirements for gradua-
tion were in being added to the requirements for admission. The Chair said that Dean
Ecton would have no objection to that part of the amendment.

Senator Bolin proposed the following amendment:

"This measure shall be in force for six years from the date on
which it becomes effective.”

The amendment was seconded. Dean Ecton did not object to the amendment. The
amendment failed to pass. The discussion reverted to the circulation of April 22 as
amended by Dean Ecton. Professor Baer asked if the Senate Council in discussing the
proposal looked at the impact on Colleges other than the College of Business and
Economics. He said that it seemed to him the proposal went much further, and he
would like to know what impact it had on Colleges that currently did not have restricted
enrollment and wanted to know if the Senate Council had considered it. The Chair said
that the answer was no.

Professor Kemp made a substitute motion that the proposal be sent back to the
Council for study during the summer and brought back to the Senate in September. The
motion was seconded. Professor Jewell said that the document did not state whether it
was approved or recommended by the Senate Council or Undergraduate Council. The Chair
responded that the procedure was a little different, because the Landscape Architecture
program was erronously sent to the Undergraduate Council. He added that the Senate
Council had not considered the proposal and did not do so because the discussion on the
Senate floor in April did not indicate any great difficulty and no member of the Senate
Council showed any interest in having a meeting. Professor lvey said that the Council
did not have the conflicting statistics when the information was mailed to them. He
did not support the motion and was in favor of sending the circulation back to the
Senate Council.

There was no further discussion, and the motion passed to return the proposal
to the Council.

The proposal as amended by Dean Ecton read