Document 12289711

Academic Standards Committee Minutes
November 20, 2000
Present: Scott Bailey, Suzanne Barnett, Jo Crane, Alyce Demarais, Houston Dougharty, Julian
Edgoose, Ron Fields, John Finney, Robin Foster (chair), Tom Goleeke, Doug
Goodman, Steve Rodgers, Jack Roundy, Yvonne Swinth, Brad Tomhave
Absent: Katie Danielson, Kristi Hendrickson, David Lupher, Karen Porter
Visitor: Carol Lentz
Foster convened the meeting at 8:08 a.m. after giving committee members time to read
documents resulting from the deliberations of the subcommittee on academic probation. She then
called attention to the minutes of the last meeting of the committee.
Fields M/S/P approval of the minutes for the meeting of 6 November 2000
as distributed.
Announcements. Bailey announced that over the weekend he had received an email message
about “The Students’ Bill of Rights” and asked if others have learned about this project.
Dougharty explained that it is an initiative that has come about in the context of the Student
Senate’s review of the Student Integrity Code. Foster observed that the matter potentially could
involve the ASC, but at the moment it is not a part of the committee’s agenda.
Tomhave reported that the PC met twice since the last PC report. On 9 November 2000 the PC
acted on 6 petitions, all approved. On 16 November 2000 the PC dealt with 9 petitions and
approved 8 (4 of these were approvals by action of the Office of the Registrar as authorized by
the ASC) and denied 1. These statistics appear on printouts submitted to Barnett and
summarized below.
8 (4*)
The year-to-date figures are as follows:
80 (31*)
No Action
* The parenthesized number indicates the number of the stated approvals done by the Office of
the Registrar as authorized by the Academic Standards Committee for resolution of specified
issues of registration.
Foster reported on behalf of the subcommittee established at the last meeting (Barnett, Finney,
Foster, and Roundy) to review the Logger statements about academic probation (p. 42) and
“Representation in University Activities” (p. 46). Foster then summarized the main changes as
proposed by the subcommittee: (1) Separation of probation and eligibility for participation in
athletics and reduction of the paragraphs on p. 46 to address “Eligibility for Student Athletics”
only; (2) shift of comment about restrictions on activities from the “Eligibility” statement on p. 46 to
the paragraph on academic probation on p. 42. The latter change removes all reference to
conduct probation under the Student Integrity Code in connection with academic probation and
makes the point that students on academic probation are to give priority to their academic work. It
also distinguishes between “University-sponsored activities” and “student-sponsored activities”;
the proposed phrasing would allow students on academic probation to “participate only in
University activities that are required in their degree programs” and would advise students on
academic probation “to limit their participation in student-sponsored activities as well.”
Barnett M/S approval of the changes proposed by the subcommittee, but the committee’s
deliberations did not reach conclusion and no vote on the motion occurred at this meeting.
Discussion raised several issues, including the distinction between “University activities” and
“student-sponsored activities,” which can overlap in a case of a student’s scholarship award,
which could be in a field (for example, debate) that is not the area of the student’s major (Bailey).
Roundy asked about enforcement of activities restrictions or support for students on probation
and added that the proposed language is ambiguous with respect to a student’s financial aid
situation. Dougharty pointed to the proposed statement’s “advice” only in reference to restricting
participation in student-sponsored activities. He commented favorably on the separation of
student conduct probation and academic probation; he noted the flexibility of the proposed
phrasing, but also its lack of precision. Finney affirmed that the University in fact does not have
authority over student-sponsored activities. Tomhave asked who determines what is Universitysponsored activity and what is student-sponsored activity and observed the complexities of
judgment in this regard.
Foster suggested the possibility of passing the proposed broad statement of policy and then
relying on our planned assessment as a basis for alterations if advised by that process. After
“degree program” could appear a reference to scholarships, for example. Bailey defended the
possibility of flexibility and said he was “not sure we accomplish anything by resorting to minutiae”
in our policy statement; moreover, every case comes before the Petitions Committee. Barnett
wondered about reducing the policy statement to nothing more than the basic statement about
probation as it currently exists on p. 42 and removing the proposed references to restrictions on
activities. Earlier Barnett had proposed the possibility of stating in the letter informing a student of
academic probation status some common set of procedures expected of the student in
addressing the need to recover good academic standing.
Fields M/S/F to call the question. Foster stated that the discussion of this matter will continue at
the next meeting (4 December 2000).
The committee adjourned at 8:50.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne W. Barnett
21 November 2000