xt7xpn8xdn4x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7xpn8xdn4x/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1975-01-27  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, January 27, 1975 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, January 27, 1975 1975 1975-01-27 2020 true xt7xpn8xdn4x section xt7xpn8xdn4x H. a,.. -_~»-.—.~nvuvrtz‘xflflar""’"”P?“""‘"“"“'.'“""III-~ - - . "‘" W“




The University Senate met in called session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, January
27, 1975, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Joseph Krislov
presided. Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Harry H. Bailey*, John G. Banwell,
Harry Barnard*, Charles Barnhart, Jackie Barry, Robert P. Belin*, Joan Blythe*,
Peter P. Bosomworth, Thomas Brehm*, Joseph Burch, H. Stuart Burness*, Carl
Cabe, Michael Clawson, Anthony Colson, Frank Colton*, Bruce Combest, Ronda S.
Connaway*, Foy Cox, M. Ward Crowe*, Tim Cunningham, Vincent Davis*, George
W. Denemark*, Ronald Dillehay*, Herbert Drennon*, Vincent P. Drnevich*, Paul
M. Eakin, Anthony Eardley, Fred Edmonds*, Michael Etzel*, Robert 0. Evans*,
Lawrence E. Forgy*, Michael B. Freeman, James E. Funk*, Zakkula Govindarajulu*, , .7
Ward 0. Griffen*, Elaine Grubbs*, Joseph Hamburg, George W. Hardy, Allan C. 3 l2
Hauth, Charles F. Haywood, Rita Hawkins, Raymond R. Hornback, Charles Hughes,
Donald Ivey*, Dean Jaros, Raymon D. Johnson, Margaret Jones*, Gregory Kendrick*,
William F. Kenkel*, William Kennedy*, Paul K. Kim*, James B. Kincheloe, A.
Virginia Lane*, Charles Ludwig, Donald Madden*, Paul Mandelstam*, Donald R.
March, James R. Marsden*, William L. Matthews, Michael C. McCord, Levis D.
McCullers*, Marion E. McKenna*, William C. Miles, George E. Mitchell*, Joe Moore, J
David Mucci, Robert C. Noble*, Thomas M. Olshewsky*, Leonard V. Packett*, i



Blaine F. Parker, Arthur Peter*, Barbara Reed, Robert W. Rudd, Kathryn Sallee*,
D. Milton Shuffett, Otis A. Singletary*, Herbert W. Sorenson*, Don Soule, M. ; 1%
Lynn Spruill*, John B. Stephenson, J. Truman Stevens, Marjorie S. Stewart,
Willis A. Sutton*, William C. Templeton*, Harold H. Traurig*, {arwin L. Voss,
William F. Wagner, M. Stanley Wall, M. O'Neal Weeks*, Bruce H. Westley,
Miroslava B. Winer, W. W. Winternitz, Roy Yarbrough*, Robert G. Zumwinkle*.



The minutes of the regular meeting of December 9, 1974 were approved ‘
as circulated. ; i



On behalf of the College of Arts and Sciences Dr. Louis J. Swift, Chairman
of the Department of Classical Languages and Literatures, read a Resolution
on the death of Professor Wilbert L. Carr, Professor Emeritus. The Senators
stood for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Carr and in
acceptance of the Resolution.

Wilbert L. Carr, Professor Emeritus of Classics at the University
of Kentucky died on Thursday, November 14, 1974 in Lexington. He was
in his one hundredth year. Educated at Drake University and at the ‘ :_4
University of Chicago, Professor Carr had a long and distinguished career ; j?”
as a teacher of Latin in the secondary schools and at the university level. ‘”
He taught at his alma mater around the turn of the century and then went
on to positions at Oberlin College (1920—24), the University of Michigan
(1924—30), Columbia University (1930—41), and Colby College (1941-49)
before becoming Visiting Professor at the University of Kentucky (1949-62).
He is perhaps best known to generations of Classicists as an editor of
Classical Outlook and as author or co—author of several very popular Latin
textbooks. He was also co—author of the General Report gf_the Classical
Investigation, a nationwide study of Classical education in this country
which was published in 1924. During his many years as a teacher and in—
terpreter of the Classics, Professor Carr published some eighty articles
and almost two hundred book reviews. A long standing member of the American I . ,
Philological Association and the Classical Association of the Middle West P a 25
and South, he was also president of the American Classical League from »- 1 in
1931—37 and served as director of its Service Bureau from 1948 to 1958.




"Absence explained


ML“, ‘ “:2; .:.< :.





I my; . . . . V

Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 — cont

After his ”final" retirement at the age of 87 he maintained an active

interest in the Classics and continued to do editorial work until

shortly before his death. He was the recipient of an honorary

Doctor of Laws degree at Drake University in 1937. Professor Carr ‘3.
is survived by his two sons, Wilbert and Wallace Carr and by his 7
daughter, Mrs. Betty Ceike.

The author of this biographical note can attest from personal
knowledge that Professor Carr retained his wit and good humor to the
very end. Those who knew him will understand the kind of joyous spirit
that his presence created and the honored life that he led for a full

Chairman Krislov recognized Dr. Roger Eichhorn, Secretary of the Senate
Council, who presented the following Resolution on Dr. Stanford L. Smith.


The members of the University Senate of the University of Kentucky wish
to express their thanks and appreciation to W.

for his service as Chairman of the Senate Council during the year 1974.

Stanford L. Smith provided articulate, energetic, and dynamic leadership
during his term in office, particularly in developing better relation-
ships with the Community Colleges, increasing the efficiency of the
Senate and its committees, providing better communication between all
segments of the University, and clarifying and simplifying rules, reg—
ulations, and procedures.

RESOLVE, therefore, that the University Senate go on record to recognize
the valuable contributions made by Stanford L. Smith and thereby express
its appreciation to him for the significant service that he has rendered.

RESOLVE, further, that this resolution be adopted, spread upon the g!‘
minutes of the meeting, and a copy sent to Stanford L. Smith.

Chairman Krislov moved to the information items on the agenda and stated
the the Senate Council would attempt to list them in the agenda of each meeting
but because of the 10—day circulation rule it might be necessary to add to
those items as events occurred.

With respect to information item (a) he reported that the Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure, chaired by Professor Criswell, had
recommended to the Senate Council on December 11, 1974 that Part III of the
A & S reorganization be approved and be implemented immediately; that the
Council had accepted that recommendation of his Committee and had informed
the President of that action.

He stated that information item (b) referred to the clearing up of the g!)
procedure for approval of graduate programs. In addition to the internal U
approval mechanisms, some years ago the Council on Public Higher Education
had placed a moratorium on programs, and further, had asked that it be given,
and it was given, the authority to approve new graduate programs. As a



Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 - cont 3960

M n- ..,..u.....uu: 35",”..m.._,._.,,.....,........w~...¢_.,,. , . .-.~-:w-.-- . --:-,-


result of that action, the University had a backlog of new programs —— eight

(8) to be exact. The Senate Council and Administration had identified the

eight programs and where they were in the approval process within the University.
In the future such programs will be moved as quickly as possible to the
President's Office where the President will exercise his discretion in pre—
senting them to the Council on Public Higher Education for final approval.

He reported further that in View of the moratorium, a decision had been
reached that a program's approval in the University mechanism would be in
effect for three years. If it had not been implemented in that time span, it ;
would be nullified and would require reapproval through the University mechanism E j}
in order to be reactivated for submission to the President for recommendation ; 3},-
to the Council on Public Higher Education. He stated further that the eight 1
programs now in the approval process would be moved to the President's Office I .W
very shortly. ’l



With respect to item (c) he reported that the Council had a request to
establish a Department of Laboratory Medicine which it hoped to bring to the
floor of the Senate very shortly. It might engender some controversy, and
he wished to alert the Senators of its imminence.

He reported on the appointment of an Ombudsman Committee. He stated that
under the Rules, the President of the University appoints the Chairman and he
had appointed Professor T. R. Robe of Engineering Mechanics. The Senate
Council appoints the remaining five members, one from the Senate Council,
two from the Student Affairs Committee, and two from Student Government. The
Senate Council appointed Rebecca Westerfield from the Council, Lisa Barclay
and Madelyn Teller from the Student Affairs Committee, and David Mucci and
Steve Winkle from Student Government. He stated that the Senators would ‘ a,
receive invitations to nominate a person to the position of Academic Ombudsman 5
and he trusted they would exercise their vote in this matter.




Dr. Krislov reported that Dr. Paul G. Sears had been reelected to a three—
year term on the Board of Trustees in the faculty election completed Friday,
January 24, 1975; that he was elected with a majority vote of 534 and that
Dr. Robert Sedler had received 339 votes on the last ballot.

Dr. Krislov reminded the Senators that the next meeting of the University
Senate would be its regularly scheduled meeting on Feburary 10, 1975.

Chairman Krislov recognized Dr. William Peters, Chairman of the Committee
on Admissions and'Academic Standards, to recommend a change in the Rules of
the University Senate, Section V, sub—section 4.3, relating to free electives,




and to make changes in the Glossary of Terms of the Rules. Since this proposal
had been circulated to the faculty of the University under date of November

26, 1974 and it was felt that the Senators might need to be reinformed of the
reasons for this recommendation, Dr. Peters reviewed the background for these


He stated that he hoped the Senate had taken the opportunity to review , p ,
the proposal dated November 24, 1974 since it set forth the rationale for the V :5‘ K?
Proposal. He stated that the Committee received a request from the Senate Council 1'1 M»
asking that they make a recommendation clarifying the term "elective" with the
hOPe that it would avoid confusion and misinterpretation in the future. He
stated that Dr. Patricia Horridge, a member of the Committee, agreed to chair a
subcommittee to research the issue; that that committee checked several catalogs
for terminology in regard to discrepancies in the term "electives" and made a

PrEliminary raport to the Committee, as a whole, as follows:

 9‘j'ailn441fluisx‘l'fl switq’ifz’z".


Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 - cont

L "We found that the term 'elective' or 'free elective' designates
I, those courses freely chosen by the student without restriction or

ii control except that the course or courses must meet course standards «a»
i as set by the University of Kentucky."


He stated further that in researching catalogs the subcommittee had also
. found that the term ”conditional elective" or ”supportive elective" designated ,
5' those areas within program requirements that are not specific requirements
' and that the student might select from courses within the limits established
by the major department and the University requirements. He reported that
the Committee as a whole then asked the subcommittee to do further research to
build a confirmation for the rationale of "free electives"; that two documents
which they consulted were ”Beginning a Second Century - The University of
. Kentucky Academic Program: Curricula, Policies, and Organization" and the
r document "University of Kentucky Governing Regulations and Administrative
l Regulations"; that the Committee at large felt that these two documents
i built a confirmation for the idea of free electives. Hence the Senate had
before it the recommendation to the effect that there be included in the
Glossary of Terms a definition of "free elective" and a definition for
"supportive elective"; and that there be added to Section V, 4.3 of the f
Rules the recommendation that if a degree program included a component of
free electives, that component must meet the definition of free electives as
set forth in the Glossary of Terms of the Rules.

Professor Roger Eichhorn, Secretary of the Senate Council, then made a
motion that the Senate add the following paragraph to the end of 4.3, Section
V—l3 of the Rules, and add the following two definitions to the Glossary of

V. 4.3 Free Electives——If a degree program includes a component
of free electives, that component must meet the definition
of free electives as set forth in the Glossary of Terms

of the Rules 9f_the University Senate.



Glossary of Terms:

Free Elective——Designates those courses freely chosen by the student 3’
without restriction or control except that the course or courses
must meet course standards as set by the University of Kentucky.


Supportive Elective—— Designates those areas within program require- I
ments that are not specific requirements. The student may select

from courses within the limits established by the major department

and University requirements.

Following expression of concern that the student might elect to take a lower
division course or courses following his completion of 200, 300, 400 level ’
courses as an easy way to earn credit toward graduation it was pointed out

that perhaps those Senators who had expressed this concern might be attempting
to fence off small details; that the purpose of the proposal is for the student
to be allowed to have some free electives if his curriculum provides for free
electives; that he would select these free electives in consultation with his 5!!
advisor and presumably that that advisor would have the opportunity to note '
if a student was attempting to opt out with a lower division course in order

to complete the required number of hours for graduation.




,,_ ‘ ,__,____,~,,,,.3,,,M..~..Wa..-~i ......... 5...,” . . . _....,~.-.-.-. w'-;.,._.-u -. . .u.»


Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 — cont 3962

The Senate then approved the change in the Rules to add a paragraph to the
end of 4.3 of Section V and to add the two definitions to the Glossary of Terms
in the Rules.

The last item on the agenda was the report of the ad_hoc Committee to
Study the Separation of Promotion and Tenure, Dr. Dallas High, Chairman. This
proposal had been circulated to the faculty under date of November 18, 1974.

Chairman Krislov stated that since he was a member of the Committee, he did

not think it appropriate that he chair the discussion. He asked Professor
Eichhorn to assume the chair for that purpose. He called on Professor Eichhorn
who moved the acceptance of the Report (which implied acceptance of Part II,
the majority report). Dr. Eichhorn then assumed the chair and recognized Dr.
High whose remarks follow:

The ad_hgg Committee to Study the Separation of Promotion and Tenure
was created in April, 1974 in order that it might respond to an issue
that came to the floor of this Senate when deliberating the Report of the
Committee to Reevaluate Promotion and Tenure (Krislov Report). Members
of this Committee are Joseph Krislov, Lewis Cochran, Hans Gesund, Alvin
Goldman, Betty Rudnick, Ernest Yanarella, and me as Chairman.

In order to avoid some misunderstanding and to be parliamentarially
correct I think I should say at the outset that the recommendation of
the Committee, as ruled by a majority, is, in fact, one sentence, namely:
"The University of Kentucky should retain the present policy regarding
tenure and promotion." This recommendation, as embodied in that one
sentence, does imply that the Committee has addressed several subissues.
While the Committee did not have a unanimous decision on one issue, there
were unanimous decisions on other issues, and as Chairman of this Committee,
I would actually prefer that the last sentence in the second paragraph
of the cover Memorandum sent out by the Senate Council under the date of
November 18th, read as follows: "This Committee recommendation is not
a unanimous recommendation and Part II and Part III constitute a majority
position and a minority position regarding one issue contained in the
recommendation —— the issue of promoting faculty to the rank of associate
professor without tenure." In other words, Part I of the Report is the
recommendation of the Committee; Part II and Part III of the Report are
reasons, justification, and a minority proposal regarding one issue.

With that clarification, let me discuss briefly some results of the
Committee's study. The Committee sent a questionnaire to 145 persons
late last spring —— to Deans, Directors, Department Chairmen, Area Committee
Chairmen, and other individuals which the Committee felt it should have
response from to this kind of query. Forty—four (44) per cent returned
the questionnaire. In some cases the response was of the Chairman or
the Dean, and in some cases the responses reflected a majority of members
of a department. Page 2 of that Report, as circulated to you on November
18th, indicates some of the main problems that many people cited with the
current system. In looking at the survey of the Committee agreed that the
problems of coupling tenure and promotion were not as widespread as was
initially suspected. The Committee also agreed that as a general rule
tenure should not be granted to an assistant professor. It also agreed
that throughout the University there was significant misunderstanding of
the present regulations and that there was an important misunderstanding
of the use of and the privileges contained in the Special Title Series.












,2. cf.::nxawamx‘mxtafi'tx'f':

Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 — cont

The remaining but crucial issue for the Committee then was whether there
were sufficient needs in some educational units to warrant granting
promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, without tenure —— that

is, to persons already in service at the University of Kentucky. The «ah
Governing Regulations and Administrative Regulations already provide

that we may grant the rank of Associate Professor, without tenure, to

a new appointment, not to exceed so many years, as determined by the
probationary period. But this was the issue of persons who are already

in service at the University. By a majority of four to three the Committee
held that there was not sufficient need to warrant a change in the current
Regulations. This was the issue in which we had a split decision, and

as Chairman, I asked for a majority and a minority report on this. It
should be noted that the questionnaire results indicated a rather split
decision on that issue, too. Thirty (30) people favored such a move.
Thirty (30) people disfavored such a move. The majority of the Committee
took this as a piece of evidence which disclosed a lack of mandate on

the issue; the minority took this as significant support of the propo—
sition that we ought to grant promotion to associate professor, without

Let me summarize briefly some of the reasons presented in Part
II and Part III of the Report held both by the majority and the minority.
The majority held the following: One, that decoupling -— that is,
separating tenure and promotion —- would dilute the criteria and rigor
of decisions on tenure and promotion. This is to say the majority felt
that two tough and rigorous decisions within the space of a two or three
year period were not likely to occur. Secondly, the majority held that
current practice and the Regulations already allow for significant varia-
tion in the standards for assessing faculty members regarding the issue
of promotion and tenure. Three, the majority held that the most serious
and cogent reasons for a change were presented by the College of Law
but that many of the problems posed by other educational units could not
be rectified by changing this particular regulation. In some instances
some persons actually asked for the seven—year probationary period or
limit to be extended. Four, the majority held that a further set of
complicated regulations would be counter—productive for the University flag
as a whole, and for individuals. For example, the termination of an "
untenured Associate Professor could prove disadvantageous to that indi—
vidual. Moreover, the majority held that faculty and administrators
must always engage —— and do engage —- in judicious and prudential
decisions regarding exceptional cases and special needs. The majority
found that there was no evidence of bad faith in such decisions nor
evidence of inflexibility concerning exceptional cases.

On the other side, the minority held the following: One, that
academic rank and tenure actually carry different meanings and reflect
different judgments concerning distinguishable factors; that rank denotes
a faculty member's relative achievement and recognition within the total
academic community of a particular discipline; that tenure denotes a
judgment concerning the individual's long-term value as a teacher and
scholar in a particular institution -— as the University of Kentucky.

The latter judgment then attends to factors often not relevant to an 535
individual's stature in a particular discipline. Two, the minority m
held that tying tenure to promotion can have an adverse impact upon

some disciplines. In some disciplines the minority held, promotion to


v.5. ..... n m1nwn:znnr**-‘_ u--~~~-~---m~-_ ,.. . . . ,..-,-,....,.. n~~.v-.:.~»v-'-' . ,,,..,...._


Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 - cont 3964

Associate Professor at other institutions is, in fact, not tied to tenure.
As a result, traditional standards for promotion may not—insure that a
person is of long—term value to an academic unit or, on the other hand,

a unit is forced to invoke higher standards for promotion than are gen—
erally held to in a particular discipline. Three, the minority held

that to invoke higher standards for promotion than those generally used

in a discipline adversely affects the morale of younger faculty and ad—
versely affects recruitment. Four, the minority held that because the
standards for promotion will not fully reflect the real needs of the
academic unit in building and maintaining a good faculty, the promotion
recommendations often coming from tenured faculty members might distort
their true and accurate evaluation of the candidate's credentials. Either
out of fear of tenure risk some may, therefore, in their tenure recommen—
dations, be unduly harsh, or, out of fear of destroying the morale and

a realistic recruitment program, some tenured members, in their evaluations,
may be unduly lenient. Five, and finally, the minority submitted a pro—
posed regulation that is presented on page 7 of the Report dated November

I did want to place before you the considerations both of the majority
and the minority —— those pertaining to that one issue of whether or
not to grant promotion to the Associate Professor rank, without tenure.
As ruled by the majority, however, the Committee recommends that the
University of Kentucky retain its present policy regarding tenure and

The Chair recognized Professor Goldman who made the following remarks:

I want to thank Dr. High and commend him on the fair and even-handed
presentation of the full report which he has just given to you. Pro—
fessor High, as did all of us on the Committee by the time our delibera—
tions were finished, had strong views as to where the merits lie, and,
as might be indicated by my thanking him, I don't think it is any secret
that Professor High was on the majority part of the Report and I was on
the minority part of the Report. Therefore, because Dr. High has done
such a fine job of summarizing the basic arguments on the merits presented
in the minority report, I will not make any attempt to reiterate those.
Rather, I want to address three points not involved in that presentation
of the basic argument of the minority report.

The first is a procedural point. If this body votes "No" on the
motion before it, it will be voting not to accept the majority report.
That will leave us in limbo with respect to this whole issue of whether
we make some kind of provision for the possibility of academic units pro—
posing people for promotion to Associate Professor without, at the same
time, proposing that they be granted tenure. It seems to me that the
best way to clarify what our procedural situation will be is for me to
tender to you that should the majority of the Senate vote "No" on the
proposition before the Senate, I will undertake to get 10 members of
the Senate to sign a petition to place the specific proposal contained
in the minority report on the agenda for the next Senate meeting. At
that point we will be able to address a specific proposal for how to
accomplish the goal of enabling academic units to promote to Associate
Professor without granting tenure. In that regard, I think it is of
some value, in getting a perspective on this discussion, to look at the
details of that proposal contained in the minority report.










-: . rim. : madmflfiflhflu S‘fiK‘TL’.‘

Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 - cont

The proposal was designed in recognition of the fact that there is very
considerable tradition throughout the University with respect to this
issue of whether it should or should not be possible to separate pro—
motion from tenure with regard to the promotion to Associate Professor.

If one looks at the back page of the Report where the tally is contained
of the raw scores in response to the questionnaire, one must recognize
that votes that concur don't necessarily mean that they concur for the
same reasons. If you will look at question 3. ”What is your response

to the idea of promoting faculty to the rank of Associate Professor
without tenure?" you will note that just from the Deans the division was
seven to five with one "No" opinion, and the weight was in favor of

the separation. When the breakdown was made by academic disciplines we
got an interesting result —— one that I think is of some significance.

Two units, one unanimously, at least with those participating, and one
substantially, were against the idea of separating promotion and tenure ——
Agriculture and Arts and Sciences —- though there were some of you going
in the other direction from those surveyed in Arts and Sciences. On

the other hand the division was substantially the other way in the Medical
School and Education and there were very close divisions in Engineering,
Business, and the category of "Other." As I recall, the category of
"Other" was comprised of professional schools such as Law and Pharmacy.

So in terms of how people responded to this proposition, the pattern is
one that seems to be based on one's own experiences with one's own
discipline and because of that pattern, the proposal designed by the
minority attempts to accommodate the inherently strong divisions of
opinion. We recognize that the survey was not what our friends in the
Behavioral Sciences would call a random sampling, but we strongly suspect,
both the majority and the minority, that the results of a true random
sampling would not be greatly varied from the results that wg received
from pp£_survey. As a result, the minority has proposed a change in
regulation which would, first of all, establish as a general rule that
promotion to the rank of Associate Professor be coupled with the granting
of tenure.

Second, the proposal would adopt a procedure to enable those academic
units seeking to do so, to justify their needs to promote their faculty
to the rank of Associate Professor without tying that decision in with
tenure. This procedure would require the approval of the appropriate
College, the University Senate Council, and the President, and the
standards by which each of these bodies would judge the application for
what might be called ”a waiver of the coupling" would be that they had
established that by tradition and widespread practice the criteria for
granting tenure in that discipline and the criteria for granting promotion
in that discipline are different—~they are not identical. That recruitment,
development and retention of faculty in that discipline of the highest
competence would best be achieved by being able, when appropriate, to
promote to the rank of Associate Professor prior to making a tenure
determination —— and I underline the phrase when appropriate. The pro—
posal is not that if a unit elects to separate these decisions, they
always have to treat them as separate——only in those instances where they
feel it is appropriate to treat them as separate decisions. That the
unit has developed separate criteria for promotion to Associate Professor
and for the granting of tenure, and that the criteria for tenure be
more rigorous than for promotion to Associate Professor. And, finally,
that the unique criteria for promotion to Associate Professor satisfy
the University's applicable regulations respecting promotions.

 ,—_.--.a».umynr-:¢:zne:r~~~‘wvv""""""”‘""':"'-'v" ‘ ' ' W“ " ""'""' ' '


Minutes of the University Senate, January 27, 1975 — cont 3966

Finally, the proposal contains a last provision that five years
after this proposal becomes effective, a study will be conducted to

gab ascertain what impact this procedural change has had upon promotion and
Tn» tenure practices within the University.

There are several kinds of problems that various units within the
University have been faced with periodically when dealing with the issue
of promotion to Associate Professor and I would like to remind you of
some of these problems you have faced in the past as a result of the
present system of tying the promotion to Associate Professor inalterably
in with the granting of tenure. One such situation I have heard coming
from more than one department is where one gets a person who has fine _
training, excellent credentials, and the credentials point in a particular ‘ i
direction. This person is going to be a specialist in subarea A. And
perhaps the first article or two that person publishes is in subarea A.
These are the articles that are generated by that person's dissertation.
After a year or two that person begins to develop other interests——does
a good job of teaching the courses that he or she has been assigned to
‘E teach—-but the research and publication interests of that individual
, begin to drift. He or she finds that the real interest is in a differe