******************************************************************
Page 4471 Minutes of Senate Meeting 215 4 May 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 215
4 May 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) corrected and approved the minutes of Meeting 213;
(2) heard a presentation on the Distinguished Teaching
Awards;
(3) learned that Proposals 19-94, 20-94, and 22-94 had been
sent to the administration;
(4) learned that Proposal 12-94 had been approved by the
administration;
(5) learned that the administration had responded to
Proposals 16-94 and 21-94;
(6) selected names of faculty to submit to President Tompkins
for selection to the Athletic Council, Sabbatical Leave
Committee, and General Education Committee;
(7) amended and approved Proposal 23-94 Scientific Misconduct
Policy;
(8) amended and approved Proposal 18-94 PhD in Engineering
- Computational Sciences and Engineering;
(9) received Proposals 24-94, 25-94, 26-94, 27-94, 28-94,
and 30-94.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
President Bornhorst called the meeting to order at 5:37 pm on
Wednesday, 4 May 1994, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 27 senators or alternates were
present. Senators or alternate representatives from Chem Eng,
Civil Eng, Met Eng, AF ROTC, Army ROTC, and KRC were absent.
Absent liaison members: Dean of Engineering, and Staff Council.
J. Cross was noted as an alternate liaison for CTS. Keen noted the
presence of the new USG representative Aaron Dufrane.
III. Respects for E. Vandette
Bornhorst noted the recent death of Ed Vandette (SS) and called
for a moment of silence in memory of a colleage and former senator.
IV. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors included T. Beasier (CS), J. O. Coleman
(EE), M. Goodrich (Tech Topics), E. Horsch (Human Resources), M.
Janners (Dean of Students), G. Jayaraman (ME-EM), A. Melton (CS
Head), L. M. Ott (CS), D. Ouillette (Registrar's Office), W.
Predebon (ME-EM), D. Reed (FR), and P. Sweany (CS).
V. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes] and proposed moving ahead the presentation by Predebon.
Bornhorst called for agenda adjustments from the floor; there were
none. Vanek MOVED to approve the adjusted agenda. Mroz seconded
the motion. Bornhorst asked for objections to the proposed adjust-
ments. There were no objections, and Bornhorst declared the agenda
APPROVED as adjusted.
VI. Approval of Minutes
Bornhorst referred to the Minutes of Meeting 213 attached to
the agenda sent to senators, and called for corrections. Arici and
Grzelak noted typographical errors. Keen noted that the page
numbering was temporary pending collation of previous appendices.
Carstens MOVED to approve the corrected minutes; Grzelak
seconded. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
VII. New Business
-Distinguished Teaching Awards
Bornhorst introduced W. Predebon for a presentation on the
Distinguished Teaching Awards. Predebon distributed two handouts
(Appendix B and Appendix C of these minutes), and said that he was
recommending Senate establishment of a committee on teaching.
Predebon stated that the Distinguished Teaching Awards were
under the purview of the Faculty Association, and that he had been
administering them. To provide continuity for the awards, Predebon
said he had suggested to the Association a joint committee with the
Senate; the Association did not favor the suggestion. Now the
Faculty Association is disbanding, and the proposed Senate
committee would be responsible for maintaining the integrity and
continuity of the awards.
Predebon said that the proposed committee might also address
other issues in the quality of undergraduate and graduate teaching
listed in the handouts. An Academy of Recipients of the Award was
proposed as a means of using the expertise of the recipients.
Predebon said that the Senate committee would be a way of
monitoring the quality and integrity of the Distinguished Teaching
Awards.
Bornhorst said that he had discussed the nature of the proposed
committee with Predebon. One possibility included a committee
composed of senators and past recipients of the Award. Bornhorst
noted that the issue could not be ignored, because the Faculty
Association was disbanding. Bornhorst called for questions.
Glime asked how the award would be given at the fall
Convocation without a fall term evaluation, and what the role of
ODK in the awards would be. Predebon said that the selection for
the award this year would be made at the end of the spring quarter.
The ODK organization has done the legwork of the awards, performing
the in-class evaluations, and Predebon said he hoped they would
continue to be part of the selection process.
Janners said some tasks of the proposed committee and of the
Senate Instructional Policy Committee overlapped, and asked whether
the award selection might be put under the Instructional Policy
Committee, or if the proposed committee might take over some of the
functions of the Instructional Policy Committee. Bornhorst said
both options were reasonable.
Hubbard said the handouts indicated that evaluations from
courses were the only criteria for selection for the award.
Predebon said that the handouts were only suggestions to be looked
at by the proposed committee, and that initial selection of
candidates for the awards was a problem. Hubbard said it seemed
contradictory to have a goal of diversity in recipients, yet base
the selection on the standard course evaluation forms. Predebon
said that the evaluation forms would not be the only criterion.
Glime said that the standard evaluation forms were biased toward
smaller classes, and asked whether there were other methods of
nomination, including nominations by faculty and by alumni.
Predebon said that the nomination procedures in the handouts had
not intentionally eliminated these methods.
Carstens asked whether a good evaluation by a large class might
bias the selection toward instructors with large classes. Predebon
replied that the selection committee in the past had carefully
considered the types of courses the nominees taught. The initial
screening had been based on nominations by 600 students, followed
by classroom visits.
Bornhorst said that a decision was needed on dealing with the
issue of taking over the award function, and that his initial
response was to submit the problem to the Executive Committee.
Heyman said that the proposals should be sent as a set of
recommendations to the Instructional Policy Committee. Heuvers
said that the Committee had a three-person subcommittee
investigating teaching evaluation. Sewell said that student
membership on the committee ought to be increased when dealing
******************************************************************
Page 4472 Minutes of Senate Meeting 215 4 May 1994
with the issue. Predebon said that the current decision committee
is split evenly between faculty and students.
Bornhorst said the issue would be sent to the Instructional
Policy Committee. Predebon said the issue should not be allowed
to slip. The funds for the award came from a member of the
Faculty Association, and the opportunity to promote teaching
effectiveness should be pursued. Sewell asked about the time line
for the transfer of the function. Predebon said the committee or
function should be established next year, and that he would work
with the committee in its early stages. Boutilier said that
Predebon deserved recognition for 6-8 years of his work on the
award. [Applause.] Bornhorst thanked Predebon for his
presentation.
VIII. Report of Senate President
1. Proposal 19-94 Policy on Class Attendance was submitted to
the administration for approval [Appendix D of these minutes].
2. Proposal 20-94 Recommendation on Optional Retirement Furlough
Program was submitted to the administration for approval
[Appendix E of these minutes].
3. Proposal 22-94 University Senate Administrative Evaluation
Policy was submitted to the administration for approval
[Appendix F of these minutes].
4. Notice was received of administrative approval of Proposal
12-94 Plant Sciences Option for the BS in Biological Sciences
[Appendix G of these minutes].
5. The administration has responded to Proposal 16-94 Recom-
mendation for a Smoke-Free Campus [Appendix H of these
minutes].
6. The administration has responded favorably to Proposal 21-94
Recommendation for a Staff Handbook [Appendix I of these
minutes].
7. The Senate officers met with the Provost and discussed the
Senate budget, the discrimination and harassment policy, the
course change committee, and the interaction of the Senate
with the budget development process. The Senate should
recognize that its discussions played a role in formulation
of the budget, particularly on the issue of additional faculty
as opposed to more GTAs.
8. The minutes of the Staff Council meeting of March 14 contain
two items of interest: (a) activities of a Wellness Committee,
and (b) a discussion of the disposition of sick leave upon
retirement.
9. The Executive Committee of the Senate met on May 4 to consider
several items, including officer elections.
The Executive Committee had no objections to a proposal
for assigning senators and alternates to committees for next
year. Each new and continuing senator and alternate will be
asked to submit first, second, and third choices for committee
service. The officers will formulate tentative assignments
to be reviewed and modified by the Executive Committee. The
modified list will be discussed and approved by the full
Senate during the first meeting of fall term.
The Executive Committee discussed the Senate constitution
and constituency. The bylaws had been updated when the
Department of Fine Arts was created; further changes in the
bylaws and constitution should wait for more review by the
Committee.
10. Attachment A [Appendix J of these minutes] of the agenda is
a response of the USG to the issue of high resolution grades.
Heuvers as chair of the Instructional Policy Committee
prepared a response [Appendix K of these minutes].
Bornhorst circulated copies of the memo from the Instructional
Policy Committee, and opened the floor to questions. There were
no questions.
IX. Committee Reports
A. Elections Report. Bornhorst said that nominating petitions for
the several university committees had been circulated to the
constituency and had been received. He noted that the Senate was
required to select the names to forward to the university
president, who would select the actual committee members.
Heuvers MOVED to hold the election immediately. Roblee
seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for discussion. There was
none. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Committee on Academic Tenure: Bornhorst said that a nomination
for Elizabeth Flynn had been received, and called for further
nominations for the one vacancy on the Committee. There were no
nominations. Jobst MOVED to close nominations. Arici seconded the
motion. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote. Heyman
noted that the academic faculty was required to vote on the
election of members to the Committee on Academic Tenure.
Athletic Council: Bornhorst said that Randall Feisinger had
been nominated for the single opening on the Council and called
for nominations from the floor. There were no nominations.
Bornhorst asked for objections to closing nominations. There were
none. Feisinger was elected as the nominee to the Athletic Council
by voice vote without dissent.
Sabbatical Leave Committee: Bornhorst said the Sandra
Boschetto had been nominated for the single opening on the
Sabbatical Leave Committee, and called for nominations from the
floor. There were no nominations. Bornhorst declared the
nominations closed, without objection. Boschetto was elected as
the nominee to the Sabbatical Leave Committee by voice vote without
dissent.
General Education Committee: Bornhorst noted that there were
two vacancies on the Committee, and that nominations had been
received for Jiquon Chen and Brad Baltensperger. Bornhorst called
for nominations from the floor. There were no nominations.
Bornhorst declared the nominations closed, without objection. Chen
and Baltensperger were elected as the nominees to the General
Education Committee by voice vote without dissent.
B. Election of Senate Officers Bornhorst said that the election
of Senate officers by new and continuing senators would take place
at 5:30 on 11 May, in a special meeting of the Senate. The regular
Senate meeting would begin as soon as the special meeting was
adjourned and would end at the regular 7:30 time.
Bornhorst said that some officer nominations had been received:
for President, T. Bornhorst; for Vice-President, J. Heyman and G.
Mroz; for Secretary, J. Jobst. Heuvers nominated J. Glime for
Vice-President. Glime consented to stand for the election.
Bornhorst asked for further nominations. There were none.
Bornhorst asked for questions on the elections. Keen said that
university policy required the Senate to submit three nominees to
the university president for the Sabbatical Leave Committee, the
Athletic Council, and the General Education Committee. He added
that the president might ask the Senate for more than the single
nominees just selected. Bornhorst said that he would ask President
Tompkins personally about the matter.
X. Old Business (Part 1 of 2)
A. Proposal 23-94 Scientific Misconduct Policy. Bornhorst
referred to the text of the proposal introduced at the previous
meeting [Minutes, p.4441], and called for comments on the proposal.
Keen complimented McKimpson on the careful preparation of the
history and background of the proposal.
Beck asked about the connection between the investigation
committee and the inquiry committee. McKimpson replied that the
proposal was an effort to balance two conflicting goals. First
was a need to obtain appropriate people who would fairly examine
the issues. Second was a need to maintain confidentiality by
minimizing the number of people involved. The role of the inquiry
committee was to make recommendations to the administration for
makeup of the investigating committee. Beck said that it was not
clear that the members of the inquiry committee could not serve on
the investigating committee, and that he was concerned about
******************************************************************
Page 4473 Minutes of Senate Meeting 215 4 May 1994
the need for bringing fresh minds to the investigation. McKimpson
said that the possibility of service on both committees had not
been considered in writing the proposal.
Hubbard said that the list of specific misconduct did not
include fraud such as that reported in a recent Newsweek involving
a Texas A&M faculty member involved in a scheme for transforming
lead into gold. He asked whether this would be covered under the
proposal's listing of "deception". Bornhorst said that it appeared
to be a case of misrepresentation. McKimpson said that a comma was
needed in the sentence before "or misrepresentation" on the first
page.
Whitman said that the Graduate Student Council had been asked
to make their own Scientific Misconduct Policy for Graduate
Students, and had developed a similar document. Whitman said that
GSC would like the proposal to include a provision for graduate
student members of the investigating committee if a graduate
student is accused of scientific misconduct. Sewell asked whether
the policy would apply also to professional staff. McKimpson said
that the proposed policy was written to apply to all university
personnel.
Leifer said that the policy needed to include provisions for
legal counsel for the accused, and that there needed to be a strong
emphasis on confidentiality to protect reputations of individuals
falsely accused of misconduct. Leifer said that the proposal at
the top of page 2 should be amended to read "The University shall
make legal counsel available to the inquiry and investigating
committees and to the accused." McKimpson said that the Research
Policy Committee had extensively discussed the issue of providing
legal counsel for some or all of the individuals involved. There
were several reasons for not including provision for legal counsel:
(a) fairness to the accuser if counsel is provided to the accused;
(b) trying to insure that all the relevant facts will come out
during the investigation; (c) conflict of interest, with the
university providing counsel for an individual the university is
investigating; (d) significant expense is involved in providing
counsel for several parties. McKimpson said that both committees
were fact-finding bodies formed to make recommendations to the
administration. Based on information received from the AAUP, there
is not a legal requirement to allow counsel for the accused person.
McKimpson acknowledged the committee members involved in
developing the misconduct policy: S. Bradley, J. Diebel, G.
Jayaraman, D. Reed, X. Haung, D. Hubbard, G. Podila, and B.
Sandberg.
Reed said that access to counsel for the investigating
committee was to insure fairness, procedural propriety, and
compliance with rules of evidence. The concern was to avoid
prejudicing a future decision. Dobney said that the issue involved
faculty self-governance - whether the faculty wanted to take the
responsibility for these matters themselves, or whether they were
going to allow the lawyers into the room. Dobney said that
individuals would have legal recourse after any administrative
decisions. Further, if legal counsel were permitted during the
investigation, then a potential for abuse existed because of
possible economic inequities between accuser and accused, for
example between a graduate student and a full professor. Dobney
said the University's lawyer did not agree with this position,
although the AAUP lawyer did agree.
Leifer said that under the constitution, all accused persons
are entitled to legal counsel. Mroz said the constitutional
provision applied to a court of law, and the committee
investigation would not be a court. Legal counsel also is not
available to the accuser. Glime said that the administration
should provide counsel to the committee if it is needed, because
faculty are not trained in investigation. Without knowledge of the
law, faculty do not know what questions can be asked of whom. The
provision of counsel to the committee is a way of protecting the
committee members.
Brokaw suggesting amending the proposal to indicate that the
legal counsel is only for procedural matters. Glime suggested that
wording at the top of p.2 be changed to "...counsel available for
the Inquiry and Investigating Committees on procedural issues."
Bornhorst asked for objections to making this an editorial
correction. Hubbard said that the original wording was clear, and
that all topics on which the committees needed advice should be
included.
Bornhorst asked for a motion to approve the proposal. Mroz
MOVED that the proposal be approved. Huang seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for discussion.
Beck asked whether the proposal should be amended to make the
memberships of the three committees distinct, because people might
carry baggage from one committee to another. McKimpson said the
intent of the Research Policy Committee was to keep the memberships
distinct, and that the proposal might be amended to make this
explicit. He suggested altering the next to last paragraph on p.4
to read "This Investigating Committee will generally not include
members of the same academic department... or be members of the
Inquiry Committee,..." Beck suggested a similar alteration in the
last paragraph of p.5 for the appeals committee. McKimpson said
the wording there should be "...at least three impartial members
not previously involved in these proceedings." Keen suggesting
that the wording go into the following sentence, to read "This
appeal committee shall consist of two university faculty/staff
members who are not members of previous committees..."
McKimpson MOVED that the proposal be amended as suggested.
Grzelak seconded the motion. Sewell asked whether the amendment
implied the inclusion of a graduate student on the committee when
a graduate student is involved. Bornhorst said it did not.
Bornhorst asked for a procedural backstep, and called for
objections to the voting units listed on the proposal. Heuvers
MOVED to expand the voting units to the whole Senate. Sewell
seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for discussion. There was
none. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for objections to considering the proposed
amendments as editorial changes. There were none. The motion to
amend PASSED in a voice vote without objection.
Roblee said the proposal should be changed to require a
graduate student on the committees when a graduate student is
involved in the matter. McKimpson said such a change needed
careful examination. The committees should be made of individuals
who would search fairly for the facts, but who would be immune to
influence. McKimpson said that a proposal to include a graduate
student would be a substantive change, and that the proposal should
be returned to the committee if such a change was voted. Reed said
that graduate student or staff membership is not precluded by the
proposal. Keen noted that graduate students have little time
available for activities outside of their scholarly work, but that
senior faculty may be able to devote the required time to an
involved case of misconduct.
Dobney said that the interest in peer representation was
understandable, but the committees were not juries. The tenured
faculty are most immune to outside influence, and are likely to
have given thought to questions of proper conduct and to have had
experience in these matters.
Arici said that the proposal assumes that both accused and
accuser are available to the committees. He asked what the
procedure would be if this were not so, if for example the accused
worked in a government lab and did not respond to a request to
appear before the committee. Dobney replied that the investigation
would be completed with the available facts, and then proceed to
a legal remedy.
Glime said the policy should be passed as is, and that the
graduate students should prepare a proposal to be dealt with later.
Whitman said the Graduate Student Council had been asked by Dr. Lee
to prepare their own misconduct policy; this was largely finished
and would be brought to the Senate soon.
McKimpson MOVED an editorial change in the third paragraph on
page 2, changing all four occurrences of "immediately" to
"expeditiously". Arici seconded the motion. Hubbard asked
******************************************************************
Page 4474 Minutes of Senate Meeting 215 4 May 1994
why an adverb was needed. Heyman said that dithering around was
a classic method of covering-up. Hubbard asked whether an actual
time limit should be set. Bornhorst called for further discussion.
There was none. The motion to amend PASSED in a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for further discussion of the motion to
approve the proposal as amended. There was none. The motion
PASSED in a voice vote without dissent.
B. Proposal 18-94 PhD in Engineering - Computational Sciences and
Engineering. Bornhorst noted that a new version of Proposal 18-94
with editorial corrections [Appendix L of these minutes] had been
circulated to the Senate since the previous meeting. Huang MOVED
to approve Proposal 18-94. McKimpson seconded the motion.
Bornhorst asked for objections to the determination of voting
units. There were none.
Heuvers MOVED to table the motion until such time as the
faculty vitae were available to the senators. Heuvers circulated
two handouts [Appendix M and Appendix N of these minutes] in
support of his motion. Arici seconded the motion. Bornhorst
called for discussion.
Heuvers displayed a copy of a proposal to unify the graduate
programs of Chemistry and of Chemical Engineering, and stated that
it had been placed on reserve in the library when it had been
considered by the Senate. He said that standard operating policy
in the Senate called for placing detailed proposals for PhD
programs in the library and for circulating summary proposals to
senators. Heuvers circulated a third handout [Appendix O of these
minutes] saying it was a table of contents showing the types of
material to be included in a proposal to be placed in the library,
and noted that it included the faculty vitae, and a discussion of
the research record.
Bornhorst asked whether the faculty of the Department of
Computer Science were members of the Graduate Faculty. Melton
replied that they were. Seel stated that a lengthy proposal was
needed for establishing a new PhD program, but that Proposal 18-94
was for an option in an existing program and normally this did not
require a detailed proposal.
Grimm said that the Curricular Policy Committee had followed
the protocol of Proposal 3-84 and had not questioned the research
qualifications of the faculty members listed in the proposal. The
credibility of the current MS program supported the proposed PhD
option. Keen said that, if the motion to table passed, he would
ask a work-study student to check off the names of senators who
came to the library to read the vitae.
Seel said that the option would be administered by the Dean of
the College of Engineering, by the Dean of the Graduate School, and
by the interdepartmental committee. The Department of Computer
Sciences had worked with all three groups in developing the
proposed option; it was not a unilateral initiative from the
College of Sciences and Arts. Heuvers said that he had talked with
former Senate President Adler, who agreed that the complete
proposal should have been placed in the library.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to table FAILED in a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for discussion of the motion to approve
Proposal 18-94. Leifer asked why the Computer Sciences Department
did not just offer the PhD degree if it wanted to, and why the
engineering departments did not offer an option in computational
engineering if they thought it useful. Why was the combined
umbrella degree needed? Seel replied that the broad-based
computational initiative was long standing, and that this option
was the last iteration in the process. Use of an existing PhD
program was the most effective way of establishing the proposed
program. Melton said that the objectives and quality of the
proposed program could not be achieved in either computer science
or in engineering alone. The interdisciplinary nature of the
program was important.
Brokaw said it was hard to believe that there would be no extra
cost in setting up the program. Seel said that under the current
5-year program of the College of Sciences and Arts, a core size of
10 faculty in CS was reasonably established. The department now
has 9 faculty with 270 undergraduate majors and 25 graduate
students. Adding a 10th faculty member will be part of the annual
program development competition among the units of the College.
Arici said that the Senate at its last meeting had asked Melton
for information on the research track record of the CS faculty,
including research funding and publication record. Heuvers said
the Senate was being asked to approve the proposal without seeing
whether the research was present to support the proposal. Melton
said that the cost would be minimal, because new faculty were not
being hired and new equipment was not being requested. The faculty
involved in the proposal were all members of the graduate faculty,
with demonstrated abilities in research and in attracting funds.
Heuvers MOVED to amend the proposal editorially to read "At
least two must be outside the department..." in the 6th line on p.5
of the proposal. Keen seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for discussion. There was none. The motion
PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Bornhorst asked for further discussion of the motion to approve
Proposal 18-94. Grimm said that the proposal encourages
collaboration among departments, and meets a need for inter-
disciplinary computational research in the university.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion PASSED in a show-of-hands vote, 15-4.
Bornhorst called for objections to considering quickly several
items of New Business before continuing with Old Business. There
were no objections.
XI. New Business
A. Proposal 24-94 Faculty Grievance Policy & Procedures. Bornhorst
said that Proposal 24-94 [Appendix P of these minutes] had been
circulated to senators 10 days before the Senate meeting scheduled
for 11 May. The proposal would be considered as old business at
that meeting.
B. Proposal 25-94 Course Grades. Bornhorst said that Proposal
25-94 [Appendix Q of these minutes] also had been circulated to
senators 10 days before the Senate meeting scheduled for 11 May.
The proposal would be considered then.
C. Proposal 26-94 Release of Grades - Right to Privacy. Bornhorst
said that Proposal 26-94 [Appendix R of these minutes] also had
been circulated to senators 10 days before the Senate meeting
scheduled for 11 May. The proposal would be considered then.
D. Proposal 27-94 Midterm Grade Report Policy. Bornhorst said that
Proposal 27-94 [Appendix S of these minutes] would similarly be
considered at the meeting on 11 May.
E. Proposal 28-94 Rescission of Policy on Distribution of Grading
Practices. Bornhorst said that Proposal 28-94 [Appendix T of these
minutes] would similarly be considered at the meeting on 11 May.
F. Proposal 30-94 Record of Course Drops. Bornhorst said that
Proposal 30-94 [Appendix U of these minutes] would similarly be
considered at the meeting on 11 May.
Bornhorst called for discussion of the introduction of the
several proposals. Sewell said that several of the proposals could
have a large impact on students, who needed to have a chance to
review them. She said the Senate should avoid the appearance of
shoving these through without wanting input from students. Roblee
said that USG had a member on the Instructional Policy Committee,
so that USG had the opportunity to examine the proposals and
provide input. Heuvers said that the proposals concerning students
had been submitted to USG.
******************************************************************
Page 4475 Minutes of Senate Meeting 215 4 May 1994
Heuvers distributed copies of some additional comments on
Proposal 27-94 [Appendix V of these minutes] from Roblee, Glime
and Jobst.
XII. Old Business (Part 2 of 2)
C. Proposal 17-94 Policy on Academic Freedom. Bornhorst called
for consideration of Proposal 17-94 introduced at the previous
meeting [Minutes, p.4470]. Heuvers MOVED the approval of Proposal
17-94. Brokaw seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for objections to the recommendation of voting
units. Moore MOVED to expand the listing to Other Course-offering
units. Grzelak seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for
discussion. There was none. The motion PASSED without dissent in
a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for discussion of the motion of approval.
Sewell said that the proposal should include the whole campus,
because other persons besides faculty are involved in research and
teaching. Bornhorst noted that the policy was to be included in
the faculty handbook, and that such a policy might wait for a staff
handbook.
Moore said that Proposal 17-94 addresses students. Sewell said
she was unclear about what was to be included in the Faculty
Handbook and was to go into a staff handbook, and that professional
staff needed to be included in a policy on academic freedom. Ott
said that the policy needed to go into the Faculty Handbook, and
that its application to staff was not clear. Keen said that the
policy was essential for the Faculty Handbook as part of the
faculty contract with the university. Sewell said the inclusion
of library staff was not clear. Heuvers said the library staff
teaches courses listed in the catalog.
Moore said that the Library's concern was not course offerings.
Librarians require academic freedom to carry out their
responsibilities in selecting materials for the Library.
Bornhorst asked for suggestions for rewording the proposal.
Brokaw said that the first line of the proposal should include all
members of the university community; everybody should be able to
speak freely without concerns of attack. Seel said that this
confuses two issues: the right of freedom of speech, and academic
freedom of faculty regarding course content. Librarians should
have the right to put any book on the shelf without interference.
Sewell said that a seminar offered by Counseling Services
involved an evaluation instrument to which there was some
objection. Current policy afforded the staff no protection.
XIII. Adjournment
Mroz MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was
seconded. Without opposition, Bornhorst declared the meeting
adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Submitted by Robert Keen
Secretary of the University Senate
.