******************************************************************
Page 4558 Minutes of Senate Meeting 217 11 May 1994
THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting No. 217
11 May 1994
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) approved the minutes of Meeting 214;
(2) learned that President Tompkins would not accept single
nominees for university committees;
(3) accepted Proposal 29-94 Approval of Academic Calendar for
1994-95 as an emergency proposal and passed it;
(4) reconsidered Proposal 17-94 Policy on Academic Freedom,
and returned it to the Faculty Handbook Steering
Committee;
(5) approved Proposal 28-94 Rescission of Policy on
Distribution of Grading Practices;
(6) approved Proposal 30-94 Record of Course Drops;
(7) amended editorially and approved Proposal 24-94 Faculty
Grievance Policy & Procedures;
(8) approved Proposal 26-94 Release of Grades - Right to
Privacy;
(9) approved Proposal 25-94 Course Grades;
(10) briefly considered Proposal 27-94 Mid-term Grade Report
Policy.
_______________________________________
I. Call to Order
Immediately at the conclusion of Meeting No. 216, President
Bornhorst called Meeting No. 217 to order at 5:54 pm on Wednesday,
11 May 1994, in Room B37 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
II. Roll Call of Members
Secretary Keen called the roll. 30 senators or alternates were
present. Senators or alternate representatives from Met & Mat Eng,
AF ROTC, and Fine Arts were absent. Absent senator at-large:
Filer. Absent liaison members: Dean of Engineering, Dean of
Sciences & Arts, and Staff Council.
III. Introductions and Recognition of Visitors
Recognized visitors were F. Dobney (Provost & Executive Vice-
President), M. Goodrich (Tech Topics), M. Janners (Dean of
Students), and D. Ouilette (Registrar's Office).
IV. Agenda Adjustments
Bornhorst referred to the published agenda [Appendix A of these
minutes], and proposed moving the report of the finance committee,
adding a report of Instructional Policy Committee, and considering
New Business before Old Business. Bornhorst asked for agenda
adjustments from the floor; there were none. Grimm MOVED to accept
the adjusted agenda. Arici seconded the motion. The motion PASSED
with no opposition in a voice vote.
V. Approval of Minutes
Bornhorst referred to the Minutes of Meeting 214 attached to
the agenda sent to senators, and called for corrections. Keen
noted that the pagination was erroneous. Grzelak MOVED to approve
the minutes. Davutyan seconded the motion. The motion PASSED
without opposition in a voice vote.
VI. Reports from Committees (Part 1 of 2)
A. Finance Committee. Committee Chair Pickens distributed a
handout [Appendix B of these minutes] and reported on activities
of three subcommittees. The Budget Oversight Subcommittee, chaired
by E. Carlson, had spent the year becoming familiar with the
budget. The Financial Management & Investment Subcommittee,
chaired by J. Gale, worked with CFO McGarry to obtain good returns
on some investments including the reserve required for the medical
benefits for TIAA-CREF retirees, to refinance the bond debt on the
Memorial Union, and to upgrade professional services including
auditing and banking.
Jobst asked whether the medical benefits began immediately.
Pickens replied that the benefits were immediately available to
retirees, but that funding the benefits was divided between a long-
term endowment and short-term payment of benefits.
VII. Report of Senate President
1. President Tompkins has asked the Senate to submit the required
three nominees for the Sabbatical Leave Committee, Athletic
Council, and General Education Committee. Only one nominee
was elected for each committee in Meeting No. 215. The
problem will be addressed early in the fall term.
2. A clarification of a potential misunderstanding from the
previous meeting: There will be only one Scientific Misconduct
Policy for the entire university, including graduate students.
3. The Senate officers and Provost Dobney met on May 10. No
action has been taken on Proposal 19-94 Policy on Class
Attendance, Proposal 20-94 Recommendation on Optional
Retirement Furlough Program, and Proposal 22-94 University
Senate Administrative Evaluation. However, the Provost will
recommend that the funding for the administrative evaluation
be funneled through the Senate.
Bornhorst opened the floor to questions. There were none.
VIII. Reports from Committees (Part 2 of 2)
B. Ad Hoc Committee for Search Guidelines for Major University
Administrators. Committee Chair Hubbard reported that the
Committee had met regularly and had written a proposal based on a
revision of Proposal 7-92. Another parallel proposal for searching
for officers other than deans has been prepared also. This will
be discussed in a meeting on May 12 with the Committee, Bornhorst,
and the provost. The proposals should be ready for Senate action
in the fall.
C. Task Force for Tenure & Tenure-Track Policies. Bornhorst
introduced Task Force Chair D. Nelson for a presentation on Task
Force progress. Nelson reported, using a series of overhead
displays [Appendix C of these minutes]. Nelson said that the
revision of policies was part of the rewriting of the Faculty
Handbook, and involved a four-part charge. The Task Force was
taking a clean sheet approach rather than trying to patch existing
policies. Policies of peer institutions and recommendations of the
AAUP Red Book were being considered as models. A principle of the
Task Force is that departments and schools are to be allowed
substantial latitude in defining standards for tenure and
promotion.
A draft policy will be presented to the Senate by mid-autumn.
The Senate-approved policy must be submitted to the Committee on
Academic Tenure, which will conduct a vote of the faculty, probably
during the Winter Quarter.
Heyman asked whether the Committee on Academic Tenure would
mark up the version approved by the Senate. Nelson said that the
presence of Committee members on the Task Force allowed enough
communication to avoid this, unless the Senate were to modify the
proposal substantially.
D. Board of Control Relations Committee. Bornhorst reported as
Committee chair, and stated that the busy schedule of the May
meeting of the Board of Control prevented holding a breakfast with
Senate representatives. However, the Senate would be given a
chance to report to the Board as part of the academic report given
by the provost; the report would be by the Senate President. This
Senate report is intended to be a regular part of the meetings of
the Board of Control.
******************************************************************
Page 4559 Minutes of Senate Meeting 217 11 May 1994
E. Instructional Policy Committee - Calendar Subcommittee.
Subcommittee Chair Jobst reported that Subcommittee membership
included Glime, Boutilier, and Devisch from USG, and that they have
met regularly to consider a change to a semester calendar. The
membership has attended and participated in campus forums, has
interviewed faculty on both sides of the issue, and has polled
chairs of departments. Conservatively, about 60 percent of the
faculty support a change to semesters.
The opposition to quarters is focused on the interrupted winter
quarter. Arguments for a semester calendar include a longer time
for class work on topics and projects, and more faculty knowledge
of students. Over the summer the subcommittee will develop a
proposal for change to a semester system for consideration by the
Instructional Policy Committee and the Senate in the fall.
IX. New Business
- Proposal 29-94 Academic Calendar for 1994-95. Bornhorst noted
that the proposal [Appendix D of these minutes] had been circulated
with the agenda, and said that the Senate had been asked to approve
the Academic Calendars for 1994-95, 95-96, and 96-97. The Senate
officers decided that only the next year should be considered.
Bornhorst asked whether the Senate wished to consider the proposal
immediately.
Heuvers MOVED that the Senate take up Proposal 29-94 as an
emergency proposal. Diebel seconded the motion. Bornhorst called
for discussion.
Dobney said that the first line of the calendar should read
". . . re-enrolling former students". Boutilier asked whether
approving the next year's calendar was pointless. Bornhorst said
that the approval was really a rubber stamp, but that the next two
years' calendars would be considered early next fall. Hubbard
noted some misspellings in the calendar.
Bornhorst called for further discussion of emergency
consideration. There was none. The motion PASSED without dissent
in a voice vote.
Heuvers MOVED to approve Proposal 29-94. Jobst seconded the
motion. Bornhorst called for discussion. Sewell asked whether
the scheduled fall orientation for re-enrolling former students was
a new event. Janners said she did not understand why there was
any orientation scheduled.
Bornhorst asked for objections to the statement of voting
units. Sewell stated that she objected. Glime MOVED that the
voting unit be expanded to the full Senate. Grimm seconded the
motion. Bornhorst called for discussion. There was none. The
motion PASSED without opposition in a voice vote.
Sewell restated her question about the new orientation.
Ouilette said that re-enrolling former students had been asked the
previous fall to arrive on campus for scheduling and registration
with new students. Bradley inquired about the wording of the
activity. Bornhorst said the Senate was approving only the dates
of the activities, not the activities themselves. Keen said the
Senate in the past had been concerned with dates of the winter
break period, and this proposal was intended to avoid such
problems.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to approve Proposal 29-94 PASSED in a voice vote without
dissent.
X. Old Business
A. Proposal 17-94 Policy on Academic Freedom Bornhorst noted that
a motion to approve Proposal 17-94 [Minutes, p.4470] had been on
the floor at the adjournment of Meeting 215, and called for a
motion to continue consideration of the proposal.
Grzelak MOVED to take up the motion to approve Proposal 17-94.
Heuvers seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for discussion.
There was none. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Bornhorst noted that the Senate had voted previously to expand
the voting units to include the Other Course-offering Units. He
then called for discussion on the motion to approve the proposal.
Moore said that the Senate had editorially removed the word
"faculty" from the first line of the proposal in the previous
meeting. Bornhorst agreed. Grzelak asked to what "members"
referred if "faculty" was missing. Bornhorst said it should
probably should read "members of the university". Hubbard MOVED
to amend the proposal so that the first sentence would read "...the
right of all members of the university community". Heuvers
seconded the motion.
Heyman said that this wording was so vague as to make the
policy useless, and would create many boundary problems. The urge
to broaden the was laudable, but a better reading might be
"faculty, librarians, and research staff".
Dobney said that the change was important. The policy was
intended to protect the freedom of professors in the classroom to
delve into controversial issues. The policy covers more than
freedom of speech. All members of the university community have
freedom of speech. Academic freedom has a special meaning,
covering individuals who teach, including staff who have faculty
appointments for purposes of instruction, and covering researchers
in their areas of research. Broadening the coverage is a
withdrawal to a different level.
Glime noted that the second paragraph extends academic freedom
to students, and for consistency they should also be included in
the first paragraph. Sewell asked Dobney about the place of
professional staff who lecture in classes or who do research.
Dobney replied that any individual engaged in the instructional or
research mission of the university would be protected under the
policy. Beck suggested changing the wording to read "those
involved in the teaching and research process".
Grzelak said that, because the policy was intended for
inclusion in the Faculty Handbook, it should cover only those
individuals to whom the handbook applies. Mroz said that the
concept of academic freedom could not be extended to students, and
that the lines including students should be stricken from the
proposal.
Heuvers asked whether professional staff involved in their
professional duties should be covered by the policy. Grzelak said
that such a statement would be appropriate in the proposed staff
handbook. Sewell said that the staff handbook did not yet exist,
and the policy should include all university members. Moore said
it was important that librarians be protected by the policy in
carrying out their jobs.
Whitman said that students were included at several points in
the policy, and that they should have the right to debate with an
instructor. Mroz said that students cannot get fired for arguing
with an instructor, and that the critical point of academic freedom
is the protection from loss of a job. Heyman said he disagreed;
the policy applies principally applies to faculty, but teaching is
a reciprocal process and students need protection in a teaching
setting. Students should not be penalized for disagreeing with an
instructor. Heuvers said that students need protection from
faculty. Julien said that the inclusion of other groups does not
put any limitation on faculty. Glime said that including other's
rights in a faculty handbook would require faculty to recognize the
rights of other groups. Heyman said that if the amendment were
defeated, he would propose an amendment with more specific
language.
Goodrich said she qualified as professional staff, but would
never expect the type of freedom that faculty can expect in
performing their classroom duties. She said that her first loyalty
is to MTU, but that faculty belong to a community of scholars that
extends beyond the university.
Roblee asked whether Public Safety should be permitted the
right to do their job as they thought it should be done, without
oversight of the institution. McKimpson asked whether the policy
should address the individuals covered, or the types of activities
covered by academic freedom.
Keen MOVED to send Proposal 17-94 back to the Faculty Handbook
Steering Committee for further consideration. Heuvers
******************************************************************
Page 4560 Minutes of Senate Meeting 217 11 May 1994
seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for discussion of the
motion.
Mullins said the proposal did need further work, because the
proposal made academic freedom almost synonymous with free speech.
The act of teaching differs from the act of speaking out or
talking, and academic freedom applies to the way things are taught.
Heuvers said that the Steering Committee should emphasize the
importance of the policy to faculty specifically.
Bornhorst called for further discussion of the motion to send
the proposal to committee. There was none. The motion PASSED
without opposition in a voice vote.
B. Proposal 28-94 Rescission of Policy on Distribution of Grading
Practices. Bornhorst called for consideration of the proposal
previously distributed to the Senate [Minutes, p.4550]. Heuvers
MOVED to approve the proposal. Grzelak seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for objections to the recommendation of voting
units. Sewell said that grading practices affect students, which
in turn will affect other divisions of the university. Mullins
said that grading practices were not the purview of everybody on
campus.
Heuvers MOVED to include the Other Course-offering Units in the
voting units. Heyman seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for
discussion. Sewell said that the grading practices affected
counseling practices. Heuvers said that the proposal did not
concern awarding of individual grades, but involved only the
generation of a report on grade distributions.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to expand the voting units PASSED in a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for discussion of the proposal. Roblee said
that the proposal called for termination of the requirement for
generation and distribution of a report showing the grades awarded
by different levels of classes in different departments. The
proposal was not prompted by conversion to the Banner system. The
report required effort, and nobody seemed to care about the report.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to approve PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
C. Proposal 30-94 Record of Course Drops. Bornhorst called for
consideration of the proposal previously distributed to the Senate
[Minutes, p.4551]. Heuvers MOVED to approve the proposal.
Davutyan seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for objections to the recommendation of voting
units. Sewell said that grading practices affect students, which
in turn will affect other divisions of the university. Heuvers
MOVED to expand the voting unit to the full Senate. Glime seconded
the motion. Bornhorst called for discussion. There was none. The
motion to expand the voting units PASSED in a voice vote.
Dufrane asked what was the premise behind the proposal.
Janners said that the faculty for a long time had been concerned
with the lengthy drop period. After the six-week drop deadline,
a course may be dropped only with permission of the Dean of
Students. The current late-drop policy is hard to enforce, and
grades of I and X are available when a student cannot complete the
work. The intent of the proposal is to reduce the period during
which a student may drop a course with no record of enrollment.
The intent is also to encourage students to think more carefully
when enrolling for a course, and to provide a disincentive for
frequent course dropping.
Heuvers said that the policy is consistent with policies at
Michigan and Michigan State, although those institutions record W
grades starting in the second or third week of the term. The
policy does nothing but require a W on the transcript for drops
after the third week of class.
Glime said that the proposal sent to the students asked for a
W being recorded in weeks 4-8; she asked why the proposal had been
modified from this period. Heuvers said that the Instructional
Policy Committee had decided that the 8-week date might as well
have specified the end of the term at 10 weeks; the current 6-week
date was accepted as a compromise. Janners said the original
proposal had called for a W being recorded for weeks 4-6, and that
after week 8 no drops would be permitted. Fynewever said the only
change is putting a mark on the record of a student who drops
between weeks 4 through 6, which seems like punishment.
Heyman asked whether there was evidence from the other schools
that the policy would solve the problem of students waiting until
the end of the sixth week to drop a course. Boutilier said she
hoped the policy would urge students to drop a course earlier in
the term. Students frequently delay dropping a course until it
affects their work in other courses. Sewell said the current drop
policy needs modification. However, students will perceive the
early W as punishment in their pursuit of higher grades a
punishment rather than a help.
Mroz asked whether the W would be erased from the transcript
if a student retakes the course. Janners said it would not be
erased. Janners added that in discussions with student groups, the
students had agreed that the proposed policy was correct, although
it was somewhat disagreeable. USG in fact had voted to support the
original proposal.
Dufrane said that USG had voted to support the original 4-8
week proposal. However, the newly elected USG had just voted to
rescind that support. The new USG sees no use for the policy.
Mullins asked whether there had been some change proposed in
the tuition structure to discourage enrolling for more credits.
Malette said that a real concern was the closing of classes and
making them unavailable to students. A student who intends to
complete only four courses will schedule five with no penalty.
Tuition rates are being studied to find whether frivolous
enrollments can be restricted.
Carstens said that the drop policy difficulties are a problem
associated with the quarter system. Sewell said that manipulations
of scheduling and dropping are an evident problem, and are self-
defeating for the students. However, the approach to the problem
should be broader than that in the proposal.
Roblee said that if the Senate thought that the proposed policy
was onerous for students, it should be defeated. If the Senate
thought that the proposal would provide a disincentive for
frivolous enrollment, the proposal should pass. Heuvers said that
the proposal does not change the drop date. Glime said that if
the proposal aims to solve the problem of drops late in the term,
then the students should be asked for solutions to the problem.
The disadvantages to the students currently include scheduling
problems and increased tuition.
Carstens said the proposal was an attempt to patch a poor
system. Mullins said he agreed with Carstens, and that the
ultimate solution rested in the tuition schedule.
Heyman said that the solution to the drop problem should be
systematic, and should come from the tuition schedule. However,
defeating the proposal and sending it to the students will not
bring about a stronger solution. It was bizarre to think that
giving Ws was an onerous policy. The six-weeks drop date is
intellectually indefensible from the point of view of college-age
students. It promotes micro-management of class performance. In
fact, the proposal is not systematic, and is very weak.
Janners said that the current system encourages students to act
against their own interests. Students need to learn to accept
early negative feedback as information, away from a course.
Fynewever said that academically troubled students are unsure of
their performance on exams that are not handed back before the end
of the sixth week. These students should not be marked on their
transcripts. Roblee said that students need feedback on their
performance, which requires exams and grading, which requires time
at least through the sixth week. However, a W on the transcript
after the fourth week is not a big deal.
Dobney said that the point of a course withdrawal system is
not to allow students to manage grade-point averages, but to allow
them to exit a course gracefully if they cannot understand
******************************************************************
Page 4561 Minutes of Senate Meeting 217 11 May 1994
the instructor or the material. A statement that a student did not
stick out a course to the end is honest, not onerous.
Grimm said that there is too much emphasis on grades, and too
little on learning. Alteration of the tuition schedule is not
likely to be effective, because tuition is paid largely by parents
who may not be aware of the subtleties of over-scheduling and
dropping courses. Arici said that early grades could not be a
complete measure of success, because F and D grades are given.
Julien MOVED to end discussion of the motion. Mroz seconded
the motion. The motion PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
The motion to approve the proposal PASSED in a show-of-hands
vote, 16-12.
D. Proposal 24-94 Faculty Grievance Policy & Procedures. Bornhorst
called for consideration of the proposal previously distributed to
the Senate [Minutes, p.4538]. Heuvers MOVED to approve the
proposal. Grzelak seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for
objections to the recommendation of voting units. There were no
objections. Bornhorst called for discussion of the proposal.
Julien MOVED that as an editorial change the terms "week day"
and "calendar day" should be replaced by "work day" throughout the
proposal. Carstens seconded the motion. Bornhorst called for
discussion of the amendment. There was none. The motion to amend
PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Julien noted that the faculty review committee mentioned in
the proposal had not been defined, because it was not clear whether
the committee would function only for faculty grievances, or as
part of other review processes. Bornhorst said that other task
forces involved in revising the Handbook would also be proposing
similar review committees.
Julien said a constituent was concerned about the interaction
between the review committee and the university ombudsman, and
about the starting of the clock for the grievance process. The
response of the Task Force was that any consultation with the
ombudsman would not negate the ability to start the grievance
process.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to approve PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
E. Proposal 26-94 Release of Grades - Right to Privacy. Bornhorst
called for consideration of the proposal previously distributed to
the Senate [Minutes, p.4547]. Heuvers MOVED to approve the
proposal. Greuer seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for objections to the recommendation of voting
units. Sewell said her previous arguments applied to this
proposal. Heuvers MOVED to expand the voting unit to the full
Senate. The motion was seconded. Bornhorst called for discussion.
Heuvers said the expansion was appropriate, because the release of
grades involved counselors and other staff. The motion to expand
the voting units PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Grzelak asked how the grades might be posted to be consonant
with the policy. Heuvers said that some instructors had assigned
random numbers to students in their classes for grade posting
purposes. Glime said that the prohibition against the full social
security number implied that a partial number was permissible.
Carstens said that "readily identifiable manner" was loosely
stated. Grzelak said that the last four digits of a Social
Security number can identify a student. Roblee said that several
students might have the same final digits. Grzelak said that this
was unlikely for students in the same class. Julien said that
students can be assigned a number. Davutyan said the last four
digits were no more anonymous than the whole number.
Dobney said that the University of Michigan and other Big 10
schools were moving to systems involving a Personal Identification
Number (PIN) for each student, and moving away from Social Security
numbers. Ouilette said that PIN numbers may be changed during an
academic year, that they were used for several purposes, and that
they were used to access an electronic system that must be secure.
Beck said he would like to be furnished with a grade roster having
some ID numbers, so that photocopying the roster would allow
posting of grades. Faculty do not have time to assign random
numbers.
Sewell said that the common practice of returning course work
in a box in a hallway was a violation of the privacy policy.
Roblee said that students were the driving force behind the posting
of grades. Sewell said that students wanted the grades posted, but
without the possibility of being identified as getting the lowest
grade in the course. Heyman said that he returns student work in
boxes, but only after distributing it to students in class. Sewell
said she agreed with Heyman's practice, but that many instructors
hand back all work in open boxes.
Boutilier said that there had to be some way to maintain the
constitutional right to privacy. Roblee asked what had changed
recently to make a problem of posting of the last five digits.
Sandberg said that the posting problem could be solved. However,
there was no choice but to vote in favor of the proposal, or the
Senate would be scofflaws.
Bornhorst called for further discussion. There was none. The
motion to approve PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
F. Proposal 25-94 Course Grades. Bornhorst called for
consideration of the proposal previously distributed to the Senate
[Minutes, p.4545]. Heuvers MOVED to approve the proposal. Arici
seconded the motion.
Bornhorst called for objections to the recommendation of voting
units. Heuvers MOVED to expand the voting unit to include the
Other Course-Offering Units. Arici seconded the motion. Bornhorst
called for discussion. There was none. The motion to expand the
voting units PASSED without dissent in a voice vote.
Bornhorst called for discussion of the proposal. There was no
discussion. The motion to approve the proposal PASSED without
dissent in a voice vote.
G. Proposal 27-94 Mid-term Grade Report Policy. Bornhorst called
for consideration of the proposal previously distributed to the
Senate [Minutes, p.4548]. Heuvers MOVED to approve the proposal.
The motion was seconded.
Bornhorst asked for objection to the recommendation of voting
units. There was none. Bornhorst called for discussion.
Heyman asked whether the Senate wished to deal with the issue
of High-Resolution Grades which had been brought up at the last
meeting. Roblee said that the subcommittee working on the issue
had determined that it should be withheld until the university
moved to electronic grade reporting.
Bornhorst asked for discussion of Proposal 27-94. Keen MOVED
to amend the proposal by striking all wording through the first
word of the last sentence, the entire proposal to read "It is
strongly recommended that instructors inform all the students in
their classes about their midterm grade status by the end of the
fifth week of the quarter". Jobst seconded the motion.
X. Adjournment
Bornhorst called for a motion to adjourn. 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
.