xt7zs756j18f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7zs756j18f/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1986-02-03  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, February 3, 1986 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 3, 1986 1986 1986-02-03 2020 true xt7zs756j18f section xt7zs756j18f  




The University Senate met in a special session at 3:05 p.m., Monday,
February 3, 1986, in room 116 of the Thomas Hunt Morgan Building.

Bradley C. Canon, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Curtis W. Absher, Ronald Atwood*, Charles E. Barnhart,
Raymond F. Betts, Dibaker Bhattacharyya*, Peter P. Bosomworth, D. Allan
Butterfield, Charles W. Byers*, John Cain, I. K. Chew, Emmett Costich*, George
F. Crewe*, Robert Dennis, Herbert N. Drennen, Anthony Eardley, Donald G. Ely,
Gerald Ferretti, Wilbur W. Frye*, Richard W. Furst, Willburt Ham*, S. Zafar
Hasan*, Leonard E. Heller, Raymond R. Hornback, Susan Johnson, James R. Lang,
Robin Lawson, Robert G. Lawson, Donald Leigh*, Edgar D. Maddox, Paul
Mandelstam*, Kenneth E. Marino, Sally S. Mattingly*, John Menkhaus*, Peggy
Meszaros, H. Brinton Milward, Mark Moore, Robert C. Noble*, Todd Osborne,
Merrill W. Packer, Bobby C. Pass, Robin D. Powell, Madhira D. Ram*, G. Kendell
Rice, Thomas C. Robinson, Wimberly C. Royster, Edgar L. Sagan, Karyll N.
Shaw*, Timothy Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, Carol B. Stelling*, Laura
Stivers*, Kenneth R. Thompson, Kellie Towles*, Enid S. Waldhart*, Jesse Weil,
Peter Winograd

The Minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1985, were approved as circu—

Chairman Canon made the following announcements: ,

"First, I want to remind you of the Rally for
Higher Education at the Civic Center Auditorium in
Frankfort this Wednesday. You have probably gotten
several notices so I will not reiterate the details.
Second, the Senate will meet again a week from today
for our regular February meeting. We have a number
of agenda items for the February meeting that need to
be considered.

We have only one item on the agenda today, the
revision of the General Studies Curriculum, which is
proposed by the Swift Committee that has worked three
years on this revision. I fervently hope that we can
finish this today, and I suspect all of you feel the
same way. We disposed of about half of the amend-
ments at the December meeting, and I hope we can
finish the other half today. I want to apologize
that all of the amendments are not in one package.

If you have the circulations of November 4, November
25, and January 3 you should have everything you need
to follow what is going on at the meeting.


The same rules that governed the December meet-
ing will be in effect for this meeting. First, for
convenience in counting votes the Senate Council asks
that voting members of the Senate to please sit in
the center section and non-voting members and visi-













tors to sit in the side sections. We voted in
November that no new substantive amendments may be
offered to the package at this time. Amendments to
the amendments under consideration may be offered.
Each amendment will be debated only fifteen minutes.
Motion to extend debate will require a two—thirds
vote. The proposer of an amendment will be recog—
nized first and also for a final rebuttal. All
speakers will be limited to two and one—half min—
utes. Secretary of the Senate, Dr. Dahl, will keep
time. No speaker other than the proposer will be
recognized twice, unless there are no others that
wish to speak. If an unfriendly amendment is pro—
posed to an amendment, it can be debated for an
additional five minutes.

After all the amendments have been disposed, the
entire package can be opened to debate. There is no
time limit on this, but a person can speak only
once. Professor Swift and other members of the
committee are here to answer questions. Let me re—
mind you that even if the package is approved today,
the Senate will not be entirely through with the
General Studies issue. Today we are considering only
the substantive outline of the General Studies
Curriculum. The Senate Council has assured the
Senate that a specific proposal for the implementa-
tion of course selection procedures and administra-
tion will be presented to the Senate later in the
spring. The Senate Council will start work on this
immediately if the Swift Committee Report is adopted.
The Senate Council welcomes any suggestions or ideas
you have.

The first order of business today is going to
relate to the statistics and logic revision. As you
know, two versions of this option were circulated.
The Senate Council wishes to withdraw its version,
labeled version I, in favor of Senator Constance
Wood's version, labeled version II, and Senator Lisa
Barclay upon whose proposal the Senate Council's
version I was originally modeled has agreed to this

The Chair recognized Professor Robert Hemenway of the English Department
who spoke for the Senate Council in the absence of Chairman—Elect Wilbur Frye.
He_ explained the Council's withdrawal of Version I. He said that when the
SWift Committee made its original report, the wording was “Option I, Calculus,
or Option II, Philosophy l20 plus Statistics 200:” In subsequent discussions
between the Council and the Swift Committee, it was realized that the original
wording was not in keeping with the Swift Committee's general policy of not
speCifying particular courses at this time. As a result, the Senate Council
changed Option II to the language now designated as Version I. After it was
circulated, Professor Constance Wood argued that this language was not fully








in keeping with the goals of the Swift Committee, namely to provide an
introuuctory statisttcs course. She proposed

Version 11 in which the requirement would read as follows: "Completion of a
course in logic plus a course in statistics with a goal to help students reach
an understanding of the modes of reasoning in statistics and the uses and
misuses of statistics in everyday life and to acquire the ability to deal
critically with numerical arguments rather than to gain the_knowledge of .
specific methodological procedures.” Professor Hemenway said, Ver51on II is
what the Senate Council asks your unanimous permission and consent to submit
as the actual wording of the General Education Proposal."

The Chairman asked if there was any objection to Version II. Professor
Tom Olshewsky asked if the proposal was amendable. He said many studies came
under the rubric of logic. His presumption was that was what the Swift
Committee had in mind by listing l20 as a feature of the formal requ1rement of
the proposal. He objected to Version II becoming a way to fulfill the re—
quirement. Professor Hemenway said the committee's assumption was that the
Senate would have a chance to respond to any inappropriate courses at the
moment specific courses were proposed to be implemented in the general studies
requirements. He said all that was being done now was asking the Senate to
agree with what was stated in the proposal as a general guideline for the
implementation committee as they go about considering courses that departments
might propose to satisfy the calculus/logic/statistics requirement. Professor
Olshewsky said that the revision provided no guidelines for what went in the
slot under logic but felt it provided guidelines for what goes in the slot
under statistics. His question to the chair was, "If we do unanimously accept
the substitution, will it then be open to amendment?" The.Chair ruled nega-
tively, because the wording, in so far as completion of a course in logic, is
the same in either version. After further discussion, the Chair held that a
"friendly“ amendment could be offered, that is one which clarified a common
understanding and drew no objection. Professor Olshewsky then proposed a
friendly amendment to change the phraseology in either version to "formal

The Chair then asked if there were any objections to the withdrawal of the
Senate Council's version of the Logic and Statistics option and the substitu-
tion of Senator Wood's version. No senator objected so Senator Hood's version
was incorporated as part of the Committee's report.

The Chair said the Senate had received communication from the sponsors of
Amendment 8 withdrawing the amendment. Professor Patrick McNamara, College of
Pharmacy, read the following statement regarding the reason for withdrawing
the amendment:

"The Department of Communication interprets the oral
communication requirement as currently worded in the
General Studies package (i.e. requiring a 'course or
series of courses in oral communication skills') as
meaning that students may complete this requirement
either through a specific course in Communication or
through completion of a series of courses embodying
foci on communication competencies that meet the same
objectives as parallel courses meeting the require-
ment in our Department."






















The Chair said the statement was read for the record so that the intention
would be understood when it came time for the actual choice of courses to be


Amendment #l3 by Loys Mather was considered first and states: "Each
student must take l2 hours of courses which deal with non-North American cul—
tures. These courses may be from one or more of the humanistic disciplines
excluding English (e.g. History, Foreign Languages, Art History, Music). A
student may by—pass 9 hours of this requirement by completing two years of a
foreign language in high school. At least 3 hours of this requirement must be
taken in a course which deals primarily with the Third World or with a
non—Western civilization." There was no objection to considering the amend—
ment out of order and it was seconded. Professor Mather said the intention of
the amendment was to allow a student who came to UK without having a foreign
language to satisfy that cultural requirement not only with a foreign language
experience but with another cultural approach such as a history or anthro—
pology course.

Professor John Rea said to equate a foreign language with studies of
culture as being exactly the same thing is incorrect. His second objection
was that the amendment would make language optional, and the Senate had
already voted to require a language. He was strongly against the amendment.
Professor Louis Swift felt the confuson was between the two areas of the
cultural dimension of the General Studies Program and the foreign language
requirement. He emphasized that the crosscultural requirement is ideally
non—Western. He cautioned the Senate against confusing the two issues.
Professor Hemenway said foreign languages were something other than a cultural
experience. He said there was a kind of introduction of certain cognitive
possibilities to students that come with foreign languages which are valuable.

In rebuttal Professor Mather said the original proposal was that if a stu—
dent did not have two years of a foreign language he/she would take six hours
of a foreign language at UK. The thrust of the Mather amendment was to have
some nonlanguage options. The Chairman said the amendment would by implica-
tion make the language requirements that were adopted by the Senate optional,
but it would put the twelve hour requirement rather than a three-hour require-
ment in the crosscultural section. The Mather Amendment failed in a voice

Professor Michael Tearney presented Amendment #9. Professor Tearney said
the thrust of the amendment is that the social science requirement is out of
line with the requirement for the humanities and the natural sciences which
state that a six hour, two-course sequence would fulfill those requirements
whereas in social science it specifically precludes the six—hour sequence in
one discipline. He did not feel that the social sciences should be treated
differently. Professor Jesse Harris spoke in opposition, arguing that the
intellectual approaches to gaining and analyzing knowledge were more diverse
in the social sciences than they were in either the humanities or the natural
sciences and that is why the committee believed that students should be ex-
posed to at least two social sciences. Professor William Adams reiterated
Professor Harris's rationale, adding that the purpose of General Studies was
to enhance a broad exposure to educational approaches.







Professor Tearney in rebuttal said he felt in some social sciences, parti-
cularly economics, the approaches were quite different in the two introductory
courses and that, moreover, a six hour sequence in a particular social science
was often necessary if the experience was to be of any use to the student.

The amendment failed in a hand count of l8 for, 41 against.

Amendment #10 by Professors Stanhope and McNamara would add Behavioral
Sciences to the list of departments included in the social sciences listing.
Professor Harris said that people who proposed amendments should explore them.
He said the Acting Chair of Behavioral Science did not know about the amend-
ment. He did not feel there was a need for the amendment. Professor James
Applegate said several departments had discussed with the Swift Committee the
social science requirement and his understanding was the listing was only "for
example" and that there was no intent to limit departments who wanted to par-
ticipate in the social science area. Professor Swift said that was correct
and the committee's concern was not whether a course came from a particular
department but about the approval the committee gave. In a voice vote the
amendment failed unanimously.

Amendment #ll in the Stanhope/McNamara package was a motion to allow
humanities courses developed for students in specific programs to fulfill the
humanities requirements. Professor Patrick McNamara said that he and
Professor Stanhope feel there are several courses which fit the general pur-
pose of the requirement and while those courses deal with specific subject
matter that are developed for specific programs, they should be able to ful—
fill the humanities requirements. There was no discussion and the amendment
failed on a voice vote.

Amendment #l2 in the Stanhope/McNamara package would effect the cross-
disciplinary requirements and it would permit the Academic Councils for each
sector to determine which courses would fit the cross-disciplinary require—
ments. Professor William Lubawy said there had been some discussion con-
cerning the difference between a discipline and a department. He said in the
Medical Center virtually all curricula were interrelated. He said there were
individuals who felt perhaps the Academic Council of the Medical Center might
be better able to make the decision concerning appropriateness of cross-
disciplinary requirements in their particular area. Professor Rea felt the
amendment removed authority from the General Studies Committee, and he thought
it should determine what courses were appropriate for fulfilling all require-
ments of the new General Studies Plan. Professor Martin McMahon did not
think there was anything to preclude the General Studies Committee from taking
into account input from the Academic Council of the Medical Center. He felt
the point of the General Studies requirements was to try to expand horizons
and to facilitate students to go outside their disciplines for a course.
Professor Swift for clarification pointed out that the Senators should recog-
nize that the cross-disciplinary requirements needed to be general studies
courses. Professor Lubawy encouraged the Senators not to think of a disci—
pline as a department because that did not hold true in the Medical School.
Amendment #l2 which would permit the Sector Councils to determine the
acceptance of crossdiscipline failed in a voice vote.

Amendment #l4 introduced by Professor Loys Mather would remove "or exclu—
sively" from criterion (2), Appendix C, page l5 of the Swift Report. The
amendment was seconded. Professor Mather said the criteria as listed on page
15 of the Swift Report was very good, but he felt the word "exclusively" was





















stronger than was needed. Professor Hemenway said it was a good amendment and
that the Senate should support it. Professor Swift also supported the amend—

The amendment passed and reads as follows:

"....courses should be devoted largely to the study of
culture, rather than of politics, economics, or historical
events ...... "

Amendment #15 was also introduced by Professor Mather which would impose a 1

"sunset clause" on cross—disciplinary and cross-cultural courses. The amend—
ment was seconded. Professor Mather felt that what the Swift Committee has
done is adding a tremendous dimension to the undergraduate program. He said
if the General Studies Committee did not force itself to look at some of the
courses that were approved to go into the cross-disciplinary and cross—
cultural category they could find out later that the program had gone
stagnant. Professor Rea agreed with this and wondered why it had to be

’ limited to courses in those particular areas. He suggested that the committee

‘V be a "watch dog" to make certain that any course in the proposal has not
changed its nature and departed from the general studies requirements. He
moved to amend the amendment to read that all courses included in the General
Studies Curriculum be subject to periodic review. The motion was seconded.
The chair ruled that the amendment was germane to Amendment #15 and allowed
five minutes debate on it.







Senator Lisa Barclay felt the spirit of the amendment was very reasonable I

but pointed out that there might be a logistical problem of reviewing all or I

nearly all courses every six years and that courses should not be removed from

the curriculum automatically if review was not feasible. Senator John Just

made the same point. After some discussion, it was agreed that the wording of

the Rea amendment was as follows: I

"Courses selected for the General Studies Curriculum once approved
shall be subject to review as to the suitability of their continued
inclusion at least once every six years.”

The amendment to the amendment passed unanimously. Professor Lester
Goldstein did not see the original amendment as a "sunset clause," because
there was no mention that the course would be automatically eliminated.
According to Professor Mather the intent of the amendment was that courses
would be reviewed not eliminated. Professor McMahon suggested for
clarification that a course may be removed every six years upon review and if
nothing is done, the course continues. Professor Mather accepted the
suggestion to re-review every course every six years. The Mather Amendment
passed unanimously on a voice vote.

circulated January 3. The amendment was seconded. Professor Gesund said the
amendment was practical because no Program Director should have the power to
direct a program, department or faculty to do something but felt it was the
power that a Chancellor may or may not have. He wanted to delete "and even
require" from the rationale accompanying Section IV (the cross-disciplinary

The last amendment was #16 introduced by Professor Hans Gesund which was 1
courses), so it would read: I








....... that the director have the necessary authority and
ability to encourage the initiation and development of the...."

Professor Bill Lyons felt the cross—disciplinary courses were a crucial
element in the revision of the General Studies Curriculum and that it will
necessarily require interdepartmental effort which may in a few situations
call for outside direction or coordination. He agreed that the Program
Director probably should not have the sole power to require departmental
action and offered the following substitute amendment for the Gesund amendment:

Professor Lyons' substitute amendment follows:

"...and, [subject to the approval of the appropriate Vice-Chancellor
for Academic Affairs,] even require departments or other academic units

to develop or continue offering courses that will fulfill the "cross-
disciplinary requirement."

Senator Gesund objected that the special rules adopted for debate on the
General Studies Curriculum allowed amendments to amendments, but said nothing
about substitute amendments. The Chair, after consultation with the Parlia-
mentarian, ruled that a substitute motion in this situation was in effect an
amendment to the amendment and accepted the motion. The Chair ruled further,
after consultation with the Parliamentarian, that there would have to be two
votes. The first would be on whether to approve the motion to substitute. If
that passed, the substitute motion becomes the only one involved, and the 7
second vote would be upon adopting or defeating the substitute motion.
Professor Gesund felt the problem with the substitute amendment was that the
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs had no control over the Medical Center.
Professor Mark Leopold pointed out there were two Vice Chancellors for
Academic Affairs and moved to insert the word "appropriate" before the words
Vice-Chancellor. Professor Lyons accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Motion to consider the substitute amendment passed on a voice vote.

Professor Gesund proposed an amendment to the amendment to substitute the
Senate Council for the Vice Chancellors. The Chair said the Senate Council
was not an administrative body and was not sure it alone could force anyone to
do anything. Professor Gesund felt the faculty should not give up its prero-
gative to make academic policy or to make requirements for the faculty to the
administrators. Professor Gesund's amendment was seconded. Professor Lyons
did not feel his amendment stripped the faculty of any decisions regarding
content or academic questions regarding any courses. The Gesund amendment
that would substitute the Senate Council for the appropriate Vice Chancellors
for Academic Affairs failed on a voice vote.

Professor Just spoke against the whole substitute amendment because he
felt it would be very difficult for the Chancellors to administer and to re-
quire that a program or department faculty to initiate or develop courses.
Professor Gesund said if the amendment were defeated the Director retains the
power to do the "forcing" and he would rather have the Vice Chancellor. The
amendment to insert [subject to the approval of the appropriate Vice—
Chancellor for Academic Affairs] into the paragraph after the word "require"
passed on a voice vote.


















With a1] amendments disposed of, the Chair said the Swift Committee Report
as a whole was now open to debate. No Senator wished to speak, so the Chair
caiied for a voice vote on the adoption of the Swift Committee Report as
amended. It passed unanimousiy and the Senate spontaneously gave itseif a

round of appiause.

Professor Hemenway, on behaif of the Senate Councii, wanted to stress his
personal feeiings and those of the Senate Councii to Professor Lou Swift who
always saw the "light at the end of the tunnei" and kept the committee moving
in the right direction and deserved formai recognition. Professor Swift was
appiauded enthusiasticaiiy.

The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

Randaii N. Dahi
Secretary, University Senate

The Swift Committee Report on the Genera] Studies Requirements as amended
is attached.








Presented to University Senate April, 1985
Adopted with amendments by Senate
February 3, 1986.


The Committee on General Education was jointly appointed by the Chancellor
of the Lexington Campus and the Senate Council in September 1982. It was
charged with responsibility "for reviewing our current General Studies Program
and, after study of current national trends and institutional opportunities
and constraints, recommending modifications and improvements in the content
and delivery of general education at the University of Kentucky." As
indicated in the progress report issued by the Committee's initial chairman,
Professor John Stephenson (University Senate Minutes, April 6, 1984), a
considerable amount of time was spent in the first two years studying national
trends and assessing the present state of general education at the University
of Kentucky through interviews with deans and chairmen and through public
hearings open to the entire academic community.

The process of re-examining general education at this institution is part ‘
of a nationwide trend in which we are neither pioneers nor the last in line. 9
Indeed, within the last six months no less than three major reports have been H
issued on the current status of higher education in this country.* All of
these reports are critical of recent developments in undergraduate instruction ’
but not all make the same diagonsis of the problem, nor do they all prescribe
the same cure. One argues for a stronger focus on traditional content or
subject matter; another suggests that more attention be given to the "methods
and processes, modes of access to understanding, and judgment that should
inform all study." What is obvious to everyone is that no one curriculum,
however wisely and imaginatively structured, is appropriate for all
institutions.v Differences in student body, faculty, institutional resources,
and institutional missions necessarily affect the type of program that is most
desirable, and the Committee has attempted to keep such factors in mind.

Professor Stephenson's progress report outlined some assumptions and
concerns which preoccupied the Committee in its deliberations. It seems
superfluous to repeat all of them here, but it might not be out of place to
list those which loomed rather large as we developed specific recommendations
for changes in the general education program at the University of Kentucky.

*"Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher
Education" by the study Group on Conditions in Higher Education, (The
Chronicle of Higher Education, October 24, 1984, 35-49); "To Reclaim a Legacy"
by W. C. Bennett (Chronicle, November 28, 1984, 16-21); "Integrity in the l;
College Curriculum; A Report to the Academic Community" by the Association of ‘

American Colleges (Chronicle, February 13, 1985, 12—30).























These concerns were fairly Widespread both among Committee members and among
faculty, students and administrators who took part in the hearings and
‘ interviews. They include the following:

‘ l. The need for greater coherence in the General Education Program. The
} present system of allowing individuals to choose five out of eight
areas and to select a wide variety of courses in each discipline says
little to students about the connected character of human knowledge
and provides little insight into what kinds of knowledge an educated
person ought to have. Under such conditions the rationale for course
selection becomes a matter of personal bent or is dictated by the
requirements of one's major department. The Committee believes that
although students should not be committed to a lock-step education,
there are certain skills and certain educational experiences which are
appropriate for all undergraduates.

2. The need for deepening all students' awareness both of their own
cultural heritage and of non-western traditions. The—shortcomings of
our present general education program in this area were a frequent
subject of criticism in our hearings and interviews, and many other
institutions of higher learning are struggling with similar problems.
The Committee feels strongly that the study of Western civilization 1M
should have a central place in the undergraduate curriculum for all ‘
{ undergraduates. It also seems clear that, amid the growing
interdependence of nations and cultures, all students should be aware
I that the western way of structuring reality or manipulating symbolic
forms is not the only way. Some experience with non-western
traditions or with traditions that include non-western perspectives is '
a necessity.


3. The need for integrative thinking across disciplinary lines. For very
l solid academic reasons, individual disciplines have traditionally been
a most effective and efficient mechanism for developing and
I transmitting knowledge. The Committee feels that blurring
disciplinary lines in all areas of instruction is neither possible nor
‘ educationally desirable. At the same time, however, we believe that ‘
I much benefit would accrue to students and faculty alike from seeing '1





that these divisions of knowledge are the product of human invention j ‘V‘ ;

and that what is learned in and through the disciplines is necessarily
I limited in scope. Much is to be gained by paying attention to the
interconnections of human knowledge and to the ways in which one area
of knowledge impinges on another.

4. The need for ongoing development of writing skills. The nature of the
problem here has been discussed at length on this campus, and the
recent decision of the University Senate to strengthen the University
writing requirement is one important step in alleviating the
difficulty. However, if our students are to continue to mature

I intellectually, writing must be integrated into the learning process.


For this reason we believe that all general education courses should
include a writing component.














5. The need for placing a high value 23 general education within
university priorities. The conflicting demands of career education
and general education are well known. However, even in practical
terms general education is an extremely valuable component of the
students' undergraduate experience. In the rapidly changing World of
work, specific training for a career or a profession quickly loses its
usefulness, and the skills needed to meet new challenges (e.g.
reasoning, writing, speaking) are precisely the ones promoted by the
general education program. More importantly, if the University is to
be faithful to its stated aim of producing "men and women of
intellectual interest and achievement, men and women possessing
character, ideas, ingenuity, moral responsibility and general
competence" (University Bulletin, p. 11), the program in general
education must occupy a more prominent position in institutional
priorities than it now does. As citizens of the Commonwealth seeking
to enrich their own personal lives and to become responsible members
of the community, our students have a right to expect that we will
provide them with the very best curriculum, the very best faculty and
the very best resources in general education that we can muster. To
do this will require both a change in outlook on the part of faculty
and administrators and a reward system that reflects our seriousness
of purpose in this regard.

6. The need for ongoing oversight of the General Education Program. If
Ernest Boyer's metaphor of general education as a spare room which
everyone wants to use but no one wants to take care of is apt, the
Committee feels that a good "straightening up," however thorough or
well executed such a reorganization might be, is not enough. A
general educational program needs both to change and to remain the
same; it needs to meet new exigencies and preserve essential values.
This goal can be attained only through continual scrutiny and
supervision by individuals who are charged with the authority and
responsibility to maintain good academic standards in the program and
to respond to new circumstances.

Over the past seven months the Committee has attempted to articulate th