Academic Standards Committee Minutes
October 12, 1999
Present: Houston Dougharty, Marianne Taylor, Yvonne Swinth, Karen Porter, Doug Goodman, Kristi
Hendrickson, Steve Rodgers, Greg Elliott, David Lupher, Ron Fields, Matt McGinnis, Brad Tomhave, John
Finney, Jack Roundy
Guests: Rob Beezer, Jannie Meisberger, Kathleen Campbell
1. Minutes: Minutes of the September 28 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: There were none.
3. Petitions Committee: Tomhave reported that the petitions committee still lacks a student member.
He also clarified the meaning of “No Action,” indicating that petitions are recorded in that category when
they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Academic Standards Committee.
Date
9/30/99
10/7/99
YTD
Approved
8
3
50
Denied
1
1
2
No Action
Total
1
1
2
10
5
54
4. Class Scheduling: Goodman inquired into faculty feedback on proposed course scheduling changes,
as solicited by members in their home departments. He reported that in Economics, his colleagues felt
that any scheduling system involved “tradeoffs,” and that to some extent, proposed changes were a “zero
sum game” in which advantages were counterbalanced by disadvantages. On balance, his department
favored the status quo. Swinth reported that colleagues in OT/PT did not favor moving to a new
scheduling model, primarily because space constraints didn’t give them much scheduling flexibility (the
“common hour” couldn’t be spared, for example). In addition, OT/PT students didn’t warm to the
alternative of operating on a different schedule from that of the rest of the campus, given their need to
take some courses from other departments. Fields reported some concerns on the part of Art faculty,
particularly those who taught studio classes; once again, the length of studio classes and the need to use
the late afternoon for them made a sacrosanct “common hour” unattractive. Visitor Beezer was invited to
weigh in on the issue but indicated he was attending just to hear the discussion; his department has much
at stake in a course scheduling revision given that they teach more than 1000 students per year using a
MTTF model that would change under the alternative models we are discussing.
At this juncture, Goodman proposed sending forward the current scheduling system (“base case”) and
the two Finney alternative models to the Faculty Senate for their deliberation. Porter inquired as to
whether the substance of our discussion should be sent forward with the proposed models. Finney
replied that the handout indicating the ways in which the revised models addressed the Senate charge
should be sufficient, so long as Goodman also attended to answer questions senators might have.
Fields suggested one perspective that might be taken to the senate was that the current system had
evolved over time, concurrently with our curriculum, and that it would be difficult to shake people out of
accustomed patterns. Hendrickson inquired as to who would make the final decision about implementing
a new system, and Finney replied that that was not clear. Taylor asked about what process would be
implemented to handle requests for exceptions under a new scheduling system, pointing out that this was
a concern of her colleagues in Psychology. Goodman suggested that an exceptions process would
probably be decided only after a revised model was approved. Finney added that he hoped the Senate
would address this question in their deliberations.
At this point, Fields MOVED, Elliott SECONDED, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY to send forward to the
Faculty Senate the three models (current system and two alternatives) we have been discussing for their
deliberation.
5. Changes to Logger Study Abroad Policy: Visitor Meisberger explained the need for study abroad
policy changes under two heads: 1) policy statements should be brought into better harmony with our
actual practices, and 2) policies should be adjusted to be consistent with “best practices” of study abroad
programs around the country and the world, particularly as regards the University’s legal liability with
respect to its selection processes. Addressing the particulars of her proposed changes, she added that
study abroad should be regarded as a privilege, not a right. Current policy doesn’t address the occasional
need to “deselect” a student who might otherwise be eligible to study abroad; proposed new language
would permit consideration of a student’s conduct record in the decision about whether s/he was ready to
be permitted the privilege of studying abroad.
Dougharty began the discussion by asking for a clarification of the phrase “history of disciplinary
problems.” Meisberger indicated that her intention was to institute a “release” system whereby students
would agree to have their disciplinary records reviewed before permission to study abroad was granted. If
they had committed conduct offenses, the Study Abroad Selection Committee would decide on a case-bycase basis whether those offenses were serious enough to merit denial of the privilege to study abroad.
Swinth inquired, ‘then students who choose not to release their conduct records would be ineligible to
study abroad?’ Meisberger said yes, they would be ineligible. She added that this review would also
allow her to complete certain documents for our study abroad affiliates with required information to which
she is not now privy.
Elliott said that as a student, he would not know what to make of the proposed new language; he might
think that any run-in with the student conduct system, however minor, would automatically exclude him,
and this would lead him to abandon the application process. If the Study Abroad Selection Committee is
to make judgment calls on the basis of the severity of disciplinary problems, then the proposed language
should be changed to reflect that.
Rodgers, Swinth, Dougharty, and Tomhave in rapid succession made suggestions for language
changes to clarify how disciplinary records would enter into the selection process for study abroad. First it
was proposed that academic probation (which automatically excludes a student) be set apart from
“disciplinary history” (which would not), and that a process for the review of a student’s disciplinary history
be outlined in the policy statement. Finney didn’t think we should articulate a disciplinary review process
separate from the eligibility review process of which it is a part. Rodgers suggested that the eligibility
statement regarding student conduct be rewritten to say, “Students who have a history of disciplinary
problems will be subject to further screening procedures.” Tomhave, dissatisfied with the vagueness of
the “disciplinary history” formulation, asked Dougharty if we could base exclusions on “incident reports.”
Dougharty thought not, given that the conduct process moves from “incident report” to “hearing” to
“determination of responsibility,” and that a student who has been found “not responsible” for an incident
would still have an incident report on file. Tomhave rejoined that we could still institute a step in the
eligibility process for study abroad for anyone with a disciplinary file, so long as we don’t build in an
automatic exclusion. Finney agreed, arguing that the wording should not rule a student out in advance
but should indicate how the eligibility decision with respect to student conduct will be made.
Dougharty suggested that we could revise the study abroad application to include a release to review the
disciplinary record. Tomhave agreed; making the release a part of the formal application process would
ensure that the selection committee gets the information they need to make a judgment call. Meisberger
and Dougharty argued that the eligibility requirements in the Logger should put students on notice about
the conduct review. Tomhave suggested that “conduct probation” could be an exclusion parallel to
academic probation in the eligibility language. Roundy objected that this would not give the Study Abroad
Selection Committee explicit latitude to exclude someone with a worrisome conduct history who did not
happen to be on “conduct probation.” Finney suggested that language further down in the policy
statement could be amended to allow that latitude.
Dougharty then proposed that the fifth bullet under eligibility requirements could continue to include
academic and conduct issues, phrasing an exclusion as follows: “Students on academic or conduct
probation are not eligible to participate in study abroad programs.” He also suggested that the first
sentence in the paragraph addressing the selection process under “Application to Study Abroad” could be
amended to read: “Students meeting the University’s and any program-specific eligibility requirements are
selected for participation based on their cumulative grade average, grades in the appropriate foreign
language (where applicable), the strength of the required essays, faculty letters of recommendation, an
evaluation of the transcript and of discipline records, and other information provided in the application and
University records.” This language would allow the committee to exclude students with problematic
conduct records, even if they were not currently on conduct probation. A proposal was also made to add
to the required materials as part of the application for study abroad both “A Signed Form to Release
Discipline Records from the Dean of Students,” and “An Unofficial Transcript.”
With this, we hastily adjourned at 9:53, agreeing to resume review of proposed study abroad policy
changes when we meet next time.
NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 9:00 am in Library 134.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy