xt7z8w383z1r https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7z8w383z1r/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1969-10-27  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, October 27, 1969 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 27, 1969 1969 1969-10-27 2020 true xt7z8w383z1r section xt7z8w383z1r      
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

 

OIl

 

1%

‘uL‘l'
V‘

Q

l

——————‘,N

Minutes of the University Senate, October 20, 1969

(Cont'd.)

 

3.25 EVALUATION OF STUDENT CHARACTER AND ABILITY

 

A student has the right to have his character and
ability evaluated only by individuals with a personal
knowledge of him. Records containing information about
a student's character shall indicate when the information
was provided, by whom, the position of this individual,
and his qualification for evaluating the student.

The Chairman announced that if there were no objections the Senate would stay
in session until 5:30, recess until 4:00 p.m., Monday, October 27, 1969, in the
Court Room of the Law Building when the Senate will reconvene to continue
deliberation of the Report. There were no objections to this proposal.

A Senator raised the question of the presence of a quorum. A count revealed
the absence of a quorum. The Senate then recessed until 4:00 p.m., Monday,
October 27th, at 4:00 p.m.

Meeting recessed at 5:10 p.m.

The Senate reconvened at 4:00 p.m., Monday, October 27, 1969, in the Court
Room of the Law Building. Chairman Ogletree presided. Members absent:
Staley F. Adams*, Clifford Amyx, Charles Auvenshine, Robert A. Baker, Norman F.
Billups, Richard C. Birkeback, Ben W. Black*, H. Martin Blacker? Wallace N.

Briggs*, Cecil Bull*, Marion A. Carnes, Clyde R. Carpenter*, Virgil L. Christian, Jr.,

Donald B. Coleman, Robert L. Cosgriff*, William B. Cotter, Clifford J. Cremers*,
Charles F. David III, Loretta Denman*, David E. Denton, R. Lewis Donohew, W. G.
Duncan, W. W. Ecton*, Fred Edmonds*, Roger Eichhorn*, Joseph Engelberg*, Frank J.
Essene, Joseph B. Fugate, Roy F. Gabbard, Jess L. Gardner*, Stephen M. Gittleson*,
Ben R. Gossick, Joseph J. Gruber, Michael D. Hall, Alfred S. L. Hu, John W.
Hutchinson*, Donald W. Ivey*, Don R. Jacobson, Albert D. Kirwan*, Robert W.
Kiser*, James A. Knoblett*, James F. Lafferty*, Carl E. Langenhop, Harold R.
Laswell*, Albert S. Levy, Richard V. McDougall, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Michael P.
McQuillen*, Richard I. Miller, George E. Mitchell, Dean H. Morrow, Theodore H.
Mueller, Vernon A. Musselman, Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Louis A. Norton, Horace A.
Norrell*, Richard P. O'Neill, Albert W. Patrick*, Nicholas J. Pisacano, Muriel

A. Poulin*, Leonard A. Ravitz, John W. Roddick, Robert W. Rudd, Donald E. Sands,
John W. Schaefer*, Rudolph Schrils, George W. Schwert, Robert A. Sedler*,

Ralph Shabetai, D. Milton Shuffett, Gerard E. Silberstein*, Emily V. Smith*,
William G. Survant, Duane N. Tweeddale*, Harold H. Van Horn, Harwin L. Voss*,
David R. Wekstein*, David C. White*, W. W. Winternitz*, Donald J. Wood*, N. W.
Bradley, Jean M. Hayter*, Vernon L. James, Otis A. Singletary, George J.
Ruschell, Glenwood L. Creech, Stuart Forth, Lewis W. Cochran*, Lawrence A.

Allen, Charles E. Barnhart, Harry M. Bohannan, Marcia A. Dake*, Robert M. Drake, Jr.,
Harold D. Gordon, Charles P. Graves, Joseph Hamburg, Ellis F. Hartford, Raymon
D. Johnson, William S. Jordan, Jr.*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Leonard V. Packett,
John C. Robertson*, Doris M. Seward, Eugene J. Small, John L. Sutton, Ernest F.
Witte, Joseph L. Massie.

The Senate approved the requests of Jeannie Leedom, Jean Renaker, Kernel
reporters, and Dick Ware, Kernel photographer, to attend, report and photograph.

The Chair recommended that the Senate continue in session until 5:30, then

recess and reconvene at 7:00 p.m. At this point quorum was called for. A count
revealed the absence of a quorum. ‘

*Absence explained

 

 

 

 

 

       

Minutes of the University Senate, October 27, 1969 (Cont'd.)

  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
   
 
   
   
   
   

 

Motion was made and seconded that in case of a quorum call and the absence of
. a quorum the members in attendance constitute themselves as a Committee of the
3 Whole and continue to do business subject to later approval by the Senate body
when a quorum is present.

Motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The Senate defeated this motion.

The motion on the floor that the members in attendance operate as a Committee of
the Whole and continue to do business subject to later approval when a quorum
is present was then approved by the Senators present.

‘1 1 On behalf of the University Senate Advisory Committee on Student Affairs,.

‘: Dr. Plucknett presented proposed new Sections 3.3, 3.31, and 3.32 and recommended

that these Sections be approved for inclusion in the Code under new ARTICLE III

I for recommendation to the Board through the President. The Committee of the Whole
apprbved this recommendation as presented. All of Section 3.3 - RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED — which includes 3.31 and 3.32, as approved, reads as follows:

Section 3.3 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

, 3.31 In disciplinary cases in which the accused alleges that
‘ ?'. his rights as described herein have been violated, he
_§ has the right to have this matter resolved by the Uni—
“ versity Appeals Board prior to his trial for a disciplinary
offense.

3 3.32 The student shall be guaranteed the following rights in all
Ei' proceedings of the University Judicial System:
' (Same as 3.1 - 3.8 of the Code)

 

 

A call for a quorum was made by a Senator. Signatures on the attendance sheets
were counted and the Chair ruled that a quorum was present.

 

The Senate then ratified the action taken while it was Operating as a Committee
of the Whole.

Q'i Dr. Plucknett presented a motion that in the event a quorum call showed lack ޤ%
1“ of a quorum, the Senate authorize those in attendance to become a Committee of the
Whole and continue to do business, to be reported to the Senate for approval or
disapproval at such time as a quorum is present. The University Senate approved
this motion.

‘1‘ .~ lr_l_\

Dr. Plucknett presented a motion that the Senate approve 3.41 and 3.43 under
Section 3.4 — RIGHT OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM — for recommendation to the Board of
Trustees through the President. The Senate approved this recommendation. Sections
3.41 and 3.43, as approved, read as follows: 1

Section 3.4 RIGHT OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

 

3.41 RIGHT g: FREE EXPRESSION L

 

 

A student has the right to freedom of expression, which (fig
includes the right to picket or demonstrate for a cause subject ‘
to the restriction that he act in an orderly and peaceful manner
and in no way interfere with the proper functioning of the
University as stated in section 1.3a.

 

 

 

 

 

 2835
Minutes of the University Senate, October 27, 1969 (Cont'd.)

3.43 RIGHT TO A FREE STUDENT PRESS

A student has the right to a student newspaper that will
publish news of general interest and is free to deal openly,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fearlessly, and responsibly with issues of interest and
importance to the academic community. He may also expect that
‘f the newspaper will avoid such practices as the use of libel,
undocumented allegations, obscenity, attacks on personal
integrity, deliberate deception of its readers, unnecessary
‘ harassment and innuendo, and other violations of individual
I rights.
Ed 1 The editors of the newspaper have the right to be protected
31 against dismissal or suspension except for violating these
e 1 practices, and they also have the right to editorial freedom
1. without approval of copy.
Dr. Plucknett recommended that the Senate postpone action on Section 3.42 under
'M‘ .Section 3.4 — RIGHT OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM — until such time as the Board of Trustees
I has reacted to the Policy Statement Governing Off-Campus Speakers (which was
1 approved by the University Senate on September 9, 1968 and transmitted to the
{ Board on November 19, 1968). The Senate approved this recommendation.
I Dr. Plucknett recommended approval of the entire Roman Numeral III for recom—
I mendation to the Board through the President, which includes Sections 1.53, 1.531,
, 1.532, 1.533, 1.534, 1.535, and 1.536. The recommendation was seconded.
l ,
{ Motion was then made and seconded to amend the last sentence in sub—section a.
under Section 1.535 to delete the phrase ”of the violation of a student's
sets ’ rights.” and to insert the following additional phrase after the word ”days”:
( after the Dean communicates both to the Appeals Board and the p
( student that either he considers the case without merit or is 3
m unable to terminate satisfactorily the grievance. 1
1e w?“ The Senate approved this amendment.
i
I The Senate then approved Roman Numeral III which includes Sections 1.53, 1.531,
1 1.532, 1.533, 1.534, 1.535 as amended, and 1.536. These Sections, as approved
t and amended, read as follows:
1.53 THE UNIVERSITY APPEALS BOARD
ns , There shall be a University Appeals Board with appellate
jurisdiction over all cases originating with the University Judicial
. Board or the Residence Judicial Boards, and also with jurisdiction
over all cases involving violations of rights stated herein.
1.531 APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER UNIVERSITY JUDICIAL BOARD

 

 

(Change only in heading)

 

 

 

   
  
 
  
  
  
   
   
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
 
    
 
   
  
  
 
 
  
 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\
x
i
l

I 2836
: f

1.532

1.533

1.534

1.535

1.536

Minutes of the University Senate, October 27, 1969 (Cont'd.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER RESIDENCE JUDICIAL BOARDS

Within 30 days after receipt of the decision of the
Residence Judicial Board, any accused student may appeal
in writing to the Dean of Students for a review by either
the University Judicial Board or the University Appeals
Board. This review may concern either the finding of guilt
or the nature or severity of the punishment. The Dean of
Students shall forward the appeal to the designated Board
for appropriate action.

The University Appeals Board may decide that the issue
involved in the Residence Judicial Board case warrants
its jurisdiction and therefore hear the appeal; or it

may decide to refer the case to the University Judicial
Board.

New number for 1.532 —— Disposition of Cases 9f_Discip1inary
Offenses

 

JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING STUDENT RIGHTS

a. The Board shall hear any case referred to it by
the Dean of Students and may grant the written appeal of
any student to hear a case not referred to it by the Dean
of Students. This written appeal must be submitted within
30 days after the Dean communicates both to the Appeals
Board and the student that either he considers the case
without merit or is unable to terminate satisfactorily the
grievance.

b. The Board shall also have jurisdiction to review
the substance of any academic or administrative regulation
or decision that is alleged to be inconsistent with the
rights stated herein.

The Board may initiate this review or it may be re—
quested in writing to do so by any student after consultation
with the Dean of Students. If the Board decides to consider
the academic or administrative regulation or decision, it
shall immediately notify the administrator or faculty member

responsible for it, and also provide a written statement of the

reasons for the review. The Board shall thereafter conduct
a hearing.

DISPOSITION_Q§ CASES OE STUDENT RIGHTS
After hearing a case and deciding that a violation of
student rights has been proved, the Board may select from

the following remedies:

a. The Board may request the President to admit an applicant
denied admission in violation of Article 3.12.

 
 

 
 

  

     

[It

Minutes of the University Senate, October 27, 1969

Dr. Plucknett recommended approval of items 1. and 2. under Roman Numeral IV, for
recommendation to the Board through the President.

(Cont'd.)

    
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
  
  

b. The Board may request the President to give an
applicant an athletic scholarship, or financial aid
when such have been denied or withdrawn in violation
of Article 3.13.

c. The Board may request the President to make available
University facilities and services on a fair and equitable
basis when a violation of Article 3.14 has been proved.

d. The Board may request the President to have any papers,
property, or personal effects taken from a student's person
or premises in violation of Article 3.21 returned to him

and not be used to his detriment in disciplinary or academic

proceedings.

e. The Board may request the President to direct compliance
with Articles 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25 when a violation of
the rights stated therein has been proved.

f. The Board may request the President to order the
modification of or repeal of any academic or administrative
regulation or decision inconsistent with the rights stated
herein.

g. The Board may request the President to take any other
reasonable action calculated to guarantee the rights stated
herein.

Motion was then made and seconded to amend item 1., Section 1.521a, to read:

1.

Section 1.521a —— The University J-Board shall receive appeals
directed to it by accused students from decisions of any Residence

a c

The Senate approved this amendment.

The Senate then approved item 1. as amended, and item 2. under Roman Numeral IV.
The approved changes are as follows:

1.

2.

Section 2.4

Section 1.521 Authority

a. The University J—Board shall receive appeals
directed to it by accused students from decisions
of any Residence J—Board . . .

Right 9: Appeal

Within 30 days after receipt of the decision
of the Residence J—Board, any accused student may
appeal in writing to the Dean of Students for a
review by either the University Judicial Board or
the University Appeals Board pursuant to section 1.532
and 1.533.

 

This recommendation was seconded.

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
    
    
    
      

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, October 27, 1969 (Cont'd.)

  
    
    
  
   
 
    
   
 
 
 
   
   
  
 
 
 
    
  
 
   
 
    
  
   
   
   
 
     

Dr. Plucknett recommended approval of Roman Numeral V which included the
addition to Section 1.51 — The Role 9f_the Office 9£_the Dean 9f_Students — of
Sections 1.514, 1.515, and 1.516. Motion was then made and seconded to amend
Section 1.515 to remove items d. and e. from this Section and to add them to
Section 1.535, as items c. and d. The Senate approved this amendment. Items
c. and d., to be added to Section 1.535, read as follows:

 

c. Upon receipt of the written appeal, the Chairman of the
Appeals Board shall notify the Dean of Students to forward
all reports and evidence concerning the case.

d. The Board may then by majority vote agree to hear the
student's case or allow the Dean's decision to be final.

The Senate approved Roman Numeral V which included the addition of Sections
1.514, 1.515, as amended, and 1.516. These added sections, as approved,
read as follows:

1.514 All student grievances involving rights stated herein
shall be reported to the Dean of Students within 30
days of their occurrence. Grievances reported after
this period or which otherwise come to the attention
of the Dean of Students may be acted upon according to
his determination of the circumstances.

1.515 The Dean of Students shall investigate each student
grievance to determine whether it contains merit.

a. If he decides that it does, he shall use moral
suasion, negotiation, personal appeal, and the
prestige of his office to settle the case to his
satisfaction and that of the student.

b. If he decides that it does not contain merit, he
shall forward a written report to the University
[Appeals Board and a copy to the student.

c. When he is unable to satisfy the grievance to the
satisfaction of the student or when he has notified the
student that the grievance does not contain merit, the
student has the right to appeal within 30 days to the
University Appeals Board.

1.516 The Dean of Students shall have broad investigatory powers
in such cases and he shall receive prompt and full
cooperation from students, student organizations, faculty
and administrators. He may recommend policies or practices
that should be terminated, modified or initiated to Student
Government, the Senate Council, deans, department heads,
or other appropriate persons.

Motion was made and seconded to approve the remainder of the document —— which
recommended that the following be included in the Rules_gf the University Senate
and forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification:

 

 

 

      

 

  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
    
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
   

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, October 27, 1969 (Cont'd.)

Academic Rights Qf_Students

The Faculty Ombudsman

Academic Offenses and Procedures

Academic Punishments

Authority 9f_the University_Appeals Board in Cases
of Student Rights

The Senate defeated this motion.

Dr. Plucknett then recommended approval of paragraphs A, B, C, D, and E under
I. ACADEMIC RIGHTS OF STUDENTS, and transmittal to the Rules Committee for
cofidication into the Rules. This recommendation was seconded.

Motion was then made and seconded to amend paragraph A to include the following
phrase to precede the first word in the sentence:

”In undergraduate courses not offered in professional schools

This motion was defeated.

The Senate then approved the motion to include I. ACADEMIC RIGHTS OF STUDENTS,
paragraphs A, B, C, D, and E in the Rules gf_the University Senate to be forwarded
to the Rules Committee for codification. These new Rules read as follows:

I. ACADEMIC RIGHTS OF STUDENTS
A. INFORMATION ABOUT COURSE CONTENT

A student has the right to be informed in reasonable detail
at the first or second class meeting about the nature of the course
and to expect the course to correspond generally to its official

description.
B. INFORMATION ABOUT COURSE STANDARDS

A student has the right to be informed at the first or second
class meeting about the standards to be used in evaluating his
performance, and to expect that the grading system described in the
University catalogue will be followed. Whenever factors such as
absences or late papers will be weighed heavily in determining
grades, a student shall be so informed at the first or second class

meeting.
C. CONTRARY OPINION

A student has the right to take reasoned exception to the data
or views offered in the classroom without being penalized.

D. ACADEMIC EVALUATION

A student has the right to receive a grade based only upon a fair
and just evaluation of his performance in a course as measured by the
standards announced by his instructor at the first or second class
meeting. Grades determined by anything other than his instructor's

good-faith judgment based on such standards are improper. Among

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 
   
   
   
  
    
  
 
    
  
  
  
     
      
     
     
  

    
  

 

Minutes of the University Senate, October 27, 1969 (Cont'd.)

irrelevant considerations are race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, political affiliation, or activities outside the classroom
that are unrelated to the course work.

   
 

. EVALUATION_Q§ STUDENT CHARACTER AND ABILITY

only by individuals with a personal knowledge of him. Records containing
information about a student's character and ability shall indicate when
the information was provided, by whom, the position of this individual,
and his qualification for evaluating the student.

Motion was made and seconded that if consideration of the Report had not
been completed at 5:30 p.m., the Senate recess and reconvene at 7:30 p.m.

Call for a quorum was then made. A count revealed the lack of a quorum. The
Senate then proceeded as a Committee of the Whole as a result of the action

(

A student has the right to have his character and ability evaluated L

which it had previously taken. m
l

Motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The Committee of the Whole defeated
this motion.

Motion was made and seconded to recess the Committee of the Whole at 5:30 and
reconvene at 7:30 p.m. This motion was defeated.

Motion was then made and approved that the Committee of the Whole adjourn.
This motion was approved.

The Committee of the Whole adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Kathryne W. Shelburne
Recording Secretary

It“.
45%
l
The University Senate met in special session at 4:00 p.m., Monday, November 3, l
1969, in the Court Room of the Law Building. In the absence of Chairman Ogletree, :
Vice Chairman Pisacano presided. Members absent: Staley F. Adams, Charles AuvenshiHEL:
Harry V. Barnard, H. Martin Blacker*, L. L. Boyarsky, Wallace N. Briggs*, Herbert
Bruce*, C. Frank Buck*, Cecil Bull, Marion A. Carnes*, Clyde R. Carpenter *, Virgil
L. Christian, Jr., Maurice A. Clay*, Arthur L. Cooke, Robert L. Cosgriff*, Tihamer
Z. Csaky*, Charles F. Davis, III, Jesse DeBoer*, David E. Denton, R. Lewis Donohew,
W. G. Duncan, Fred Edmonds*, Jess L. Gardner, Stephen M. Gittleson*, George W. L
Gunther, Michael D. Hall, Alfred S. L. Hu*, John W. Hutchinson*, John E. Kennedy, '
Melvin J. Lerner, Albert S. Levy, Rey M. Longyear*, Richard Mark*, Richard V.
McDougall, Michael P. McQuillen*, Theodore H. Mueller, Jacqueline A. Noonan,
Louis A. Norton, Horace A. Norrell, Richard P. O'Neill, Harold F. Parks*, Muriel
A. Poulin*, William R. Proffit, Leonard A. Ravitz, John W. Roddick, Arthur W.
Rudnick, Jr.*, John W. Schaefer, Rudolph Schrils, George W. Schwert, Ralph
Shabetai, Gerard E. Silberstein*, William G. Survant*, Duane N. Tweeddale*,
William F. Wagner*, David R. Wekstein, David C. White*, Raymond A.
Wilkie, W. W. Winternitz, J. D. Wirtschafter, Donald J. Wood, Otis A. Singletary,
Alvin L. Morris, William R. Willard*, George J. Ruschell, Glenwood L. Creech,

l
(
(
qr
[.
(
E.
i
(
(

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER 3, 1969

     

 LHHVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40506

DEAN OF ADMISSIONS AND REGISTRAR

ADMISSIONS
ORIENTATION
RECORDS

SCHOOL RELATIONS

October 21, 1969

MEMORANDUM
To: University Senate

From: Elbert W. Ockerman, Secretary, University Senate

Just a reminder that the University Senate recessed last
Monday to reconvene at 4:00 p.m., next Monday, October 27, 1969,
in the Court Room of the Law Building to continue consideration
of the Report of the Senate Advisory Committee on Student Affairs.

 

 University of Kentucky

Honor 5 Program

Dear University Senate Member:

The members of the University of Kentucky Honors Program urge
your support for the amendment proposed to expand the pass-fail option
available to students in the Honors Program. This amendment to the
present provisions for very limited pass-fail provides that: ”Students
in the Honors Program above the freshman level may, with advance
written approval of the Director of the Honors Program, select additional
elective courses to be taken on a pass-fail basis. ”

We believe you should adopt this amendment for three main reasonSr

1. It would permit many of the most talented and highly motivated
students at U. K. to overcome pressures for undue specialization
in education. Students could and would use this pass-fail option
to ”pull into” their educational experience many threads of
thought from diverse fields. This would provide a better
balanced educational base.

It would greatly enhance the ability of the Honors Program to
attract "superior" students to U. K. Currently, the Honors
Program maintains the only broadly based recruitment program
for such students at the University. Undoubtedly one of the
foremost ways to boost the quality of U. K. is through boosting
the quality of its students. Many of U. K. 's top students have
been recruited by the Honors Program. The adoption of this
amendment would greatly abet our efforts in this regard.

It would provide a well-controlled test of whether a more broad
pass—fail program would be desirable at U. K. An appraisal
of the uses to which superior students apply a more extensive
pass-fail program will give the University an important index
of the concept of pass-fail in its finest form.

The students of the Honors Program have worked on this proposal
for many months. In its final form, it was drafted by the Senate Rules
Committee. We have no dogmatic attachment to any particular form of
the proposal as long as the form at hand guarantees a significantly expanded
pass-fail option for Honors Program students. We believe that the form
set out by the Rules Committee ensures the meeting of our goa1--and thus
we fully support it.

 

 Perhaps the final issue of import is whether Honors Program students
should have special considerations at all. Such privileges, as those
mentioned above, would attract more gifted students to the University
and thus serve the betterment of the University community as a whole.
Such privileges are also consistent with helping each individual at U. K.
to develop to his full potential. The Honors Program, while it does not
include every superior student at U. K. , stands available to all such
individuals in their efforts to meet this educational goal. Such students
need special programs in order to allow them to develop more fully. The
Honors Program has greatly assisted in this regard. We believe that
adoption of this amendment would help the Honors Program to further
improve its service to University students.

The record of the Honors Program and its students has demonstrated
that the University's investment has been more than repaid. We urge the
adoption of this amendment in order to enhance the contribution that we,
as students in the Honors Program, can make to the environment of
learning and education at U. K. Thank you very much for your consider-
ation of this matter.

Sincerely,

The Students of the University of
Kentucky Honors Program>z<

*This letter adopted by the members
of the Honors Program at their general
meeting of October 23, 1969

 

 TO: Members of the Senate
FROM: Honors Program Director

SUBJECT: Honors Program Pass-Fail Preposal

At the last regular meeting of the Senate a proposal by students in
the Honors Program for a change in the rules was tabled. The students
have asked me to inform you of the background of their proposal.

But first, we are extremely sorry no representatives from the
Honors Program faculty, the students, and the Faculty Advisory Committee
were present at the meeting of the Senate to explain and defend the propo-
sition. We have all anticipated that Opportunity for many months, but—-
as sometimes happens—-we suffered from a failure of communications and
were not present when the Senate considered the matter.

You should be advised that the proposal was student initiated. In the
winter of 1968, the Honors Program Student Advisory Committee debated
the merits of Pass-Fail and decided to carry a proposal to the students in
the program. A number of meetings were held at which aspects of Pass-
Fail were debated in depth. Also, programs at other institutions were
examined. Finally, the students decided to move, through proper channels,
for Pass-Fail privileges for superior students.

In essence they proposed that superior studentsbe permitted to take
up to 32 credit hours on Pass-Fail, that none of these hours he in their
major subject or related fields (that is, that all be drawn from the elective
component of their programs), and that teachers should not be informed
that the students were registered for Pass-Fail grades (in short, that the
P and F grades be assigned by the registrar on the basis of letter grades
turned in by the professors, with grades below C to count as F).

The students then took this proposal to the Faculty Advisory Com—
mittee where they met strong opposition. In the first place, the College
of Arts and Sciences was in process of formulating its own, faculty
initiated, Pass-Fail proposal, and the Faculty Committee first inquired
why that system was not satisfactory for superior students. The students
defended their proposal eloquently and eventually won support from the
Faculty Committee (as a matter of fact there was no dissent from the
members present at the time the final decision was made, a meeting at
which students were not present to place any pressure on the Committee).

 

 The Faculty Committee then forwarded the proposal to the Senate
Council, the proper body, with the verbal request that the students be
permitted to explain their case. The Council in due time forwarded
the proposal to the Rules Committee. This Committee considered the
proposal and in time called representative Honors Program students
to defend their position. The students did so again with great vehemence
and eloquence. The Rules Committee, however, subsequently decided
not to accept the student proposal as written. In its place they substituted
the proposal which you tabled.

Without presuming to speak for the Rules Committee, we can say the
students believed that the Committee wished to do something less than
spell out an exact privilege. Accordingly, they placed responsibility for
determining the amount of work to be taken on Pass-Fail, and the courses
in which it would be permitted, on the Director of the Honors Program.
Their opinion, one presumes, was that while some students might well
profit from 32. credit hours on Pass-Fail, others should be more closely
restricted, and that sort of restriction should be the direct responsibility
of the administrator of the program. The contention raised on the Senate
floor that some students might take 100 hours on Pass-Fail and then
graduate from the University with no more than 28 graded hours is
patently preposterous and should not for an instant be entertained by
reasonable faculty members.

A number of students involved in the project were less than pleased
with the alteration of their proposal by the Rules Committee; however,
they graciously and co—operatively accepted the decision. In essence
they believed that the Pass-Fail proposal of the College of Arts and
Sciences was insufficient for certain superior students. They preferred
to spell out exactly just what their extended privileges might be, but
they were cognizant of objections sometimes raised to the Honors approach
to education and decided to accept a compromise. That is how they
viewed the change in the rules submitted to you.

Throughout a year and a half of negotiations the students were con-
stantly assured on all quarters that they would, at every step of the pro-
cedure, be accorded a fair hearing. Not only did they not receive one,
they did not receive any hearing at all on the floor of the Senate. It is
their feeling, supported by the faculty of the Honors Program, that they
deserve better. While their motion was only tabled, we are aware that
this process may effectively kill a worthy proposal in any parliamentary
body. It is the hope of us all that the Senate will reconsider this matter,
giving the students an opportunity to appear before that body to state their
case.

October 29, 19 69