AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
April 21, 2011, 1:00 p.m.
JCSU- Rita Laden Senate Chambers
All times are approximate
1:00
1.
Roll Call and Introductions
1:05
2.
Information/Discussion
1:30
3.
Visit with Executive Vice President and Provost Marc
Johnson:
Chair’s Report:
1:40
4.
Budget Discussion
Information/Discussion
1:50
5.
Curricular Review Process Resolution
Action
2:10
6.
Consent Agenda:
Action/Enclosure
2:20
7.
New Business:
Information/Discussion
2:30
8.
Campus Affairs Committee
, Mary Stewart, Chair:
Action/Enclosure
3:00
9.
Academic Standards Committee
Maureen Cronin, Chair:
Information/ Discussion
Information/Discussion
Informational Item
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINANCIAL EXIGENCY
AND CURRICULAR REVIEW AMENDMENTS
Adjourn
Future Senate Meetings
UNR Faculty Senate Website
May 4, 2011
JCSU Ballroom
May 12, 2011 JSCU - R. Laden
Senate Chambers
Future Board of Regents Meetings
NSHE Website
May 6, 2011
Video
Jun 16-17, 2011
UNR
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
April 21, 2011
Agenda Item # 4
Budget Resolution: To follow under separate cover
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
April 21, 2011
Agenda Item # 6
Link to the Consent Agenda:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/10-11/Agendas/4_21_11consentpkt.doc
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
April 21, 2011
Agenda Item # 8
Faculty Senate
Campus Affairs Committee
April, 2011 Year-End Report
Submitted by: Mary White Stewart
April 11, 2011
Committee Membership
Anne Medaille
Duncan Aldrich
David Fenimore
Nancy LaTourette
Shannon Taylor
Nancy Kohlenberger
Campus Affairs Committee (CAC)
Charges, 2010-11 Academic Year
Approved by the Senate
Purpose: The Campus Affairs Committee monitors, conducts studies, and makes recommendations on a wide
range of issues that affect the quality of campus life, such as work environment, campus safety, and food
service.
Standing Charges:
1. Review CAC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the CAC. Consider
whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board:
a. Review any proposals affecting CAC objectives, and report recommendations to the Executive
Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
b. Serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related to CAC charges and
objectives.
4. Appoint a liaison from the CAC to each of the following committees: the Committee on the Status of
Women; the Work and Family Task Force; the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Advocacy
Committee; the Multiethnic Coalition; the Intercultural Collaborative; and the University Disabilities
Resource Coalition. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these committees and the Faculty
Senate, and inform the Senate as to whether these committees are duplicating efforts.
Additional Charges:
5. Survey aspirant institutions to determine their protections, policies and practices regarding tenure.
6. Review system counsel’s determination regarding tenure, including the protection that exists in The
Code and bylaws and the conditions in which tenure can be revoked. Recommend ways to protect the
rights of tenure and mechanisms to do so.
Recommendations:
Given the length of the CAC Affairs report and the complexity of interpreting the NSHE code and
assessing its implications for faculty, we have placed the Recommendations at the beginning of the report
for your consideration, followed by the supporting documentation and reasoning.
The Senate should consider the questions proposed above.
The Senate should also consider the following, particularly as they vote on the proposals put forward by the
Code Review Committee:,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Tenure is not clearly established in the department or in the institution in the Code. A tenure location in
the institution is justified in the Code and would provide greater protection to the faculty member.
Departments should be able to defend their departments and positions in person to the College
Committees rather than only to the Senate Committee..
The justifications for termination of faculty requiring only a “reasonably adequate” statement of the
basis for termination and the process and the data on which the decision was made provides the lowest
legal level of protection of faculty. While “beyond a reasonable doubt” may not be possible here, we
recommend a “more likely than not” standard, however that might be configured in this instance.
The relationship between financial necessity and curricular review needs clarification.
Recommendations by the .Code Review Committee are addressing this and should be monitored
carefully.
The University needs to truly make every effort to place faculty who are terminated in other positions in
the University and to place them in positions that are as reflective as possible of their current status.
Faculty need to be provided a clear and forthright statement about the manner in which decisions to
terminate or save particular positions or programs were made and these need to reflect some consistency
or philosophy.
The Employment Review Process needs to be clarified to faculty so that their appearance and appeal is
more than an empty exercise. Either the purview of the committee should be expanded, or the faculty
member should be made aware that their appeal is extremely limited.
Last, curricular review is the wrong vehicle for making the draconian cuts that are a consequence of a
financial emergency. Using it in this manner strains the credibility of the process, violates its underlying
assumptions, and damages faculty by allowing for the unraveling of tenure rights. .
Charge #5:
Survey aspirant institutions to determine their protections, policies and practices
regarding tenure.
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Committee Charge ....................................................................................................................... 6
Charge #5 Subcommittee Members ............................................................................................ 6
Universities Surveyed in This Report .......................................................................................... 6
Methods Used to Compile This Report ....................................................................................... 7
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................. 7
I. Definition of Tenure .................................................................................................................... 8
II. Where Faculty Members Are Tenured and Who/What Confers Tenure ................................. 10
III. Removal When Programs or Departments Are Reduced or Eliminated ................................. 13
IV. Notice to Be Given and Removal Timelines .......................................................................... 16
V. Appeal Process ......................................................................................................................... 19
VI. Placement in Other Units and Other Alternatives .................................................................. 22
VII. Reinstatement Procedures ..................................................................................................... 24
Documents Consulted ................................................................................................................... 26
Introduction
Committee Charge
Charge #5: Survey aspirant institutions to determine their protections, policies and practices regarding tenure.
Charge #5 Subcommittee Members
David Fenimore, English
Nancy LaTourrette, Computer Science & Engineering
Ann Medaille, Libraries
Universities Surveyed in This Report
The policies and procedures related to tenure and program elimination at the Six-Pac Universities and the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas were consulted for this report. These universities are:
 Arizona State University
 Oregon State University
 University of Arizona
 University of Nevada, Las Vegas
 University of Oregon
 University of Washington
 Washington State University
Methods Used to Compile This Report
Documents related to tenure policies were identified for each of the seven institutions listed above. These
documents include university policy documents, Boards of Regents policy documents, faculty manuals,
university bylaws, and administrative codes.
The documents were read and analyzed, and seven categories were identified as being of particular interest: (1)
definition of tenure, (2) where faculty members are tenured and who/what confers tenure, (3) removal when
programs or departments are reduced or eliminated, (4) notice to be given and removal timelines, (5) appeal
process, (6) placement in other units and other alternatives, and (7) reinstatement procedures. Although the
issue of financial exigency was also addressed in these documents, this topic was not covered in this report.
Each of the seven categories is described in this report with references to procedures and policies from the
seven universities. Included are quotes and citations from the appropriate documents for further reference.
Each category includes references to university policies only when appropriate, so the policies of every
university are not necessarily described in each category. The University of Oregon and Oregon State
University are usually described together because of the joint nature of their policies. In addition, only one
document regarding the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Bylaws) is referenced in this document, although
other documents are appropriate as well, such as the NSHE Code. Those documents are considered elsewhere,
so they have not been addressed here.
Summary of Findings
A comparison of tenure policies at these seven institutions reveals several findings of interest, which are
summarized below.
(1) Tenure policies vary widely among institutions. Even the language in which tenure is initially described may
vary radically.
(2) The policies surveyed here indicate that tenure exists within the institution and not within the system.
However, an apparent disconnect exists between a common understanding that tenure is conferred by some
extra-institutional entity (e.g., a Board of Regents) and the notion that a tenured faculty member's employment
status is tied to the existence of her department, unit, program, project, or curriculum.
(3) While some policies list procedures to be followed when programs are eliminated or reduced, or when
financial exigency is declared, none of the documents states reasons as to why some programs might be targeted
for elimination.
(4) Some institutional policies specify steps in the processes that should be followed when programs or
departments are being targeted for reduction or elimination. These processes may include the following: 1) the
involvement of both students and faculty members, 2) the use of public forums as a way to involve the whole
university community, 3) reviews that explore the possible impact of the proposed program reductions on the
university, the community, and the state, and/or 4) affirmative action reviews that determine whether women
and minorities may be unfairly impacted by the proposed program reductions.
(5) Each of the institutions contains policies that specify the appeal process that should be followed if tenured
faculty members receive notice of termination, but none elaborate on the criteria that are used to evaluate
faculty who appeal a decision due to program elimination.
(6) Although all of the institutions examined here express the intent that, if possible, a terminated faculty
member should be relocated elsewhere in the institution, they do not specify a formal process. Most policies
refer to making "best," "reasonable," or "good faith efforts" or to marshaling "available resources" to assist
faculty in relocation.
(7) When a tenured faculty member's position has been terminated, the time within which that faculty member
must be offered back a recreated position varies from between two and five years.
(8) The University of Washington has a policy that stipulates that only "program elimination within the
University" can result in termination without cause of a tenured faculty member (16). Washington State, just
below the University of Washington, adds "financial exigency" to this. The others include additional reasons, in
addition to program elimination: "reduction in size or reorganization" (UNLV, 15); "budgetary or programmatic
considerations requiring program discontinuance, curtailment, modification or redirection" (University of
Arizona, 13); "program or department reductions" (Oregon State University and University of Oregon, 13);
"program ... curtailment, modification or redirection" (Arizona State University, 12).
(9) Although tenure confers the expectation of continued employment, barring misconduct, it is possible to
terminate a tenured faculty member without cause, given the ability of the administration in question to
downsize, modify, or eliminate programs through some version of curricular review.
I. Definition of Tenure
Arizona State University
Arizona State University defines tenure as a property right with the expectation of continued employment that is
given to faculty members who have demonstrated excellence in teaching, research, and service.
The employment status awarded by the president to a faculty member who has demonstrated excellence
in teaching, research, and service in accordance with criteria established by ASU. The status of tenure
creates an expectation of continued employment unless the faculty member is terminated or released in
accordance with appropriate policies.
Arizona State University, Academic Affairs Manual, Definitions
http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/acd002.html
Tenure is a property right authorized by the Board of Regents and, through board delegation of
authority, granted by the president to individuals.
Arizona State University, Academic Affairs Manual, 506-04
http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/
Oregon State University and the University of Oregon
The Oregon Administrative Rules define “indefinite tenure” as an appointment made by the institution’s
president that forbids termination of an employee except for cause, financial exigency, or program or
department reductions or eliminations.
Indefinite tenure appointments are appointments given selected faculty members having an appointment
of .50 FTE or more. Such appointments are made by the president in witness of the institution's formal
decision that the faculty member has demonstrated such professional competence that the institution will
not henceforth terminate employment except for cause, financial exigency, or program or department
reductions or eliminations.
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0100
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
The University of Oregon defines tenure in relation to academic freedom and states that those with tenure
cannot be dismissed without academic due process.
The primary method by which academic freedom is guaranteed is through a conditional grant of tenure
with indefinite term. This grant of tenure is offered only to those professors who make it through a
rigorous, probationary period. During that period, they bear the burden of proving their potential for
lifelong excellence in teaching, research, and service. Those who sustain this burden of proof are then
offered, in return, a commitment that the University will not later dismiss them without itself bearing a
burden of proof that they are not performing as expected. Tenured professors are not guaranteed their
jobs. They are, however, guaranteed that they will not be dismissed without academic due process. This
guarantee is central to academic freedom and the societal benefits that it generates.
University of Oregon, Post Tenure Review, Policy Number: 02.01.17
http://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/03000-human-resources/post-tenure-review
University of Arizona
The University of Arizona defines tenure as an employment status that creates a “legitimate claim of entitlement
to continued employment.” That employment is assured “until retirement, resignation, dismissal for just cause,
or termination for budgetary reasons or for educational policy change.” Tenure “neither constitutes nor implies
a legal obligation which the President or ABOR is not empowered to undertake” and the status is dependent on
fund allocation.
"Tenure" is the employment status awarded by a president to a faculty member who has demonstrated
excellence in teaching, research, and service in accordance with criteria established by each university.
The status of tenure creates a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment unless the
tenured faculty member is dismissed or released in accordance with ABOR Policy 6-201H., J., or K.,
(Conditions of Faculty Service, Post-Tenure Review, Dismissal or Suspension, or Release of Faculty for
Reorganization Caused by Budgetary Reasons or Programmatic Changes), of these conditions.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 C.19
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy Manual/6-201-Conditions of Faculty Service.pdf
An individual who holds a tenured appointment is assured that the President shall offer an appointment
to that individual for each succeeding fiscal or academic year until retirement, resignation, dismissal for
just cause, or termination for budgetary reasons or for educational policy change.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.11.04 Assurance of
Appointment
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
It is within neither the President's nor the ABOR's power to commit the State of Arizona to an obligation
for which an appropriation has not been made. The use of the term "with tenure" neither constitutes nor
implies a legal obligation which the President or ABOR is not empowered to undertake. In practice,
renewals of appointments of tenured faculty members have been approved and funds have been
allocated annually for these appointments.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.11.05 Legal Effect of
Tenure http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
University of Washington
The University of Washington defines tenure as the right of a faculty member to hold a position without
termination or discriminatory reduction in salary.
Tenure is the right of a faculty member to hold his or her position without discriminatory reduction of
salary, and not to suffer loss of such position, or discriminatory reduction of salary, except for the
reasons and in the manner provided in the Faculty Code.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-31
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
Tenure should be granted to faculty members of such scholarly and professional character and
qualifications that the University, so far as its resources permit, can justifiably undertake to employ
them for the rest of their academic careers.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-41
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
The University of Washington Regents accept in principle the concept that tenure for members of the
faculty is essential for effective teaching and sustained productivity in scholarship. They furthermore
accept in principle the concept that the privilege of a faculty member to hold his or her position without
discriminatory reduction in salary, and not to be removed therefrom, should not be abrogated except for
cause and through orderly administrative processes, maintaining and retaining, however, the
responsibilities and obligations of the Board of Regents as defined in the laws of the state of
Washington.7
University of Washington, Policy Directory, Board of Regents Governance, Tenure of the Faculty
Statement of Policy
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
II. Where Faculty Members Are Tenured and Who/What Confers Tenure
Arizona State University
Tenure appointments are granted by the President who is authorized by the Board of Regents. Tenured faculty
members are located at specific campuses, and tenure is not transferable among campuses.
Tenure is a property right authorized by the Board of Regents and, through board delegation of
authority, granted by the president to individuals. An individual’s tenure at Arizona State University is
located at Tempe campus, West campus, or Polytechnic campus. Tenure is not transferable among the
three campuses, except as provided through university policy and procedure.
Arizona State University, Academic Affairs Manual, 506-04
http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/
A “tenured appointment” means that the president shall offer to a faculty member, having attained such
status, an appointment for each succeeding fiscal or academic year until retirement, resignation,
termination for budgetary reasons or educational policy change, or dismissal for just cause.
Arizona State University, Academic Affairs Manual, 505-02
http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/
Oregon State University and the University of Oregon
Tenure appointments are made by the President, and faculty members are tenured within a department within an
institution. Those with tenure in one department or institution cannot claim tenure in another department or
institution.
Indefinite tenure appointments are appointments given selected faculty members having an appointment
of .50 FTE or more. Such appointments are made by the president in witness of the institution's formal
decision that the faculty member has demonstrated such professional competence that the institution will
not henceforth terminate employment except for cause, financial exigency, or program or department
reductions or eliminations.
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0100
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
Tenure is reaffirmed as being institutional. Faculty having achieved tenure status in one Department
institution cannot thereby claim tenure in other Department institutions.
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0105
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
University of Arizona
Tenure is awarded by the President to a faculty member.
Attainment of tenure can only occur through specific notification by the President and may not result
from inaction or inadvertence.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.11.03
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
"Tenure" is the employment status awarded by a president to a faculty member who has demonstrated
excellence in teaching, research, and service in accordance with criteria established by each university.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 C.19
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy Manual/6-201-Conditions of Faculty Service.pdf
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The award of tenure requires formal approval from the Board of Regents.
4.3.1 (A) Faculty members with well established careers may be tenured at the time of initial
appointment provided they: (1) meet the basic UNLV standards for tenure; (2) are recommended by a
vote of those eligible to vote on tenure decisions according to the bylaws of the appropriate department;
(3) receive written recommendations from the department chair, the dean of the college, the Executive
Vice President and Provost, and the president of the university. The award of tenure is contingent upon
formal approval by the NSHE Board of Regents. (B/R 10/98)
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
University of Washington
Tenure is conferred by the President, who acts on behalf of the Board of Regents. Faculty members are
employed by the Board.
The dean, advised as prescribed in Chapter 24, Section 24-54, Subsection C shall then make his or her
recommendation to the President, and if tenure is to be granted it shall be conferred by the President
acting for the Board of Regents.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-41
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
General powers and duties of the board of regents are as follows:
(2) To employ the president of the university, his or her assistants, members of the faculty, and
employees of the institution, who except as otherwise provided by law, shall hold their positions during
the pleasure of said board of regents.
(8) Except as otherwise provided by law, to enter into such contracts as the regents deem essential to
university purposes.
Washington State Legislature, RCW 28B.20.130, Powers and duties of regents — General
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.20.130
Washington State University
Tenure is granted within departments, programs, or units. The President, acting with authority from the Board
of Regents, grants tenure.
Tenure is granted only for academic rank or professional status within programs, departments, or
service units.
The acquisition of tenure requires affirmative action by the President of the University by delegation of
authority from the Board of Regents. Tenure, once granted, is retained by the faculty member until he or
she retires or ceases to be an employee of the University.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
Faculty members may be tenured in more than unit simultaneously.
A faculty member whose appointment is budgeted on a continuing basis in more than one unit may be
granted tenure, provided that the positions are permanent and provided that tenure is granted in all
units simultaneously. Such tenure implies no obligation for one unit to increase the employment of the
person beyond the budgeted portion in the event that duties should cease to exist in another unit.
This policy applies to a person holding a joint appointment in instructional units as well as to a person
with duties divided between teaching and nonteaching responsibilities in a position having faculty
status.
In special circumstances involving a joint appointee, one unit may request permission to assume an
additional portion or all of the tenure responsibility for the faculty member, and in this case the other
unit or units accept no responsibility for continuation of the position.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
III. Removal When Programs or Departments Are Reduced or Eliminated
Arizona State University
Tenured faculty members may be released from employment due to a reorganization that is “determined to be
necessary due to budgetary or programmatic considerations requiring program discontinuance, curtailment,
modification or redirection.” This determination can only be made after a review process conducted by the
Faculty Senate and which includes both faculty members and students. The review process must include a
public forum to provide all members of the university community with an opportunity to express their views.
2. Release of tenured faculty members, or release of nontenured faculty members prior to the end of the
appointment period, may occur upon reorganization when determined to be necessary due to budgetary
or programmatic considerations requiring program discontinuance, curtailment, modification or
redirection.
3. When the reorganization proposed by the administration calls for the release of any tenured faculty
member or nontenured faculty member before the end of an appointment term, the following procedures
shall be observed:
a. The president shall ask the faculty senate to designate a review committee composed of faculty
and students to review and evaluate the proposed plan for reorganization. The committee's
review shall include a public forum to provide an opportunity for all members of the university
community to present their views on the impact of the proposed reorganization.
b. Each faculty member whose position may be affected by the proposed reorganization shall be
notified promptly in writing of the proposed action and shall be given an early opportunity to
present his or her views in person to the review committee and to the responsible administrator.
c. The review committee shall provide the president with a written evaluation of the proposed
reorganization no later than ninety (90) days following the president's request, unless the
president specifically requests that the evaluation be provided in a shorter period. This
evaluation shall include an assessment of the impact of the proposed reorganization upon
students, faculty and staff, the university as a whole, related activities outside the university, and
the interest of higher education within the state.
d. The president shall decide whether or not to recommend the reorganization following receipt
of the review committee's evaluation. If the president rejects the committee's evaluation, the
president shall furnish the committee a written statement of the reasons for doing so.
e. The president shall present his or her recommendation relating to the proposed reorganization
to the Board for approval.
f. If the Board approves the reorganization, each faculty member whose position is to be
eliminated shall receive written notice when the decision to eliminate his or her position is final.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 601 K. 2.-5
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
Oregon State University and the University of Oregon
For program or department reductions or eliminations to be made, the president must determine that these
reductions or eliminations are consistent with institutional goals and needs, after allowing for appropriate input
from others.
The appointment of an academic staff member with indefinite tenure will not be terminated for reasons
other than for cause, except for financial exigency or program or department reductions or eliminations.
Before the appointment of any academic staff member on indefinite tenure can be terminated for
financial exigency, a bona fide determination will be made by the president that a financial exigency
does exist, and that sufficient funds are not available for payment of compensation for the position
concerned. Program or department reductions or eliminations may be made by the president, upon
determination, pursuant to institutional procedures providing for faculty and other appropriate input,
that such reductions or eliminations are consistent with institutional goals and needs;
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0315
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
The University of Oregon dictates that an affirmative action review must be conducted prior to decisions being
made in regard to program reductions or reorganizations to determine the reorganization’s possible impact on
women and minorities.
Under state law, the university must conduct an affirmative action review prior to any decision to make
reductions in force or to reorganize activities. The impact on women and minority employees and
students must be a consideration in the reorganization decision.
University of Oregon, Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of Oregon
http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/content/chapter-iii#
According to the University of Oregon, department/program reductions/eliminations must reflect a regard for
the rights of affected faculty members and may not be used in place of taking action for cause.
University procedures relating to program or department reductions or eliminations reflect a regard for
the rights of the affected academic staff members, and such procedures may not be used as a substitute
for taking action against a faculty member for cause.
University of Oregon, Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of Oregon
http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/content/chapter-iii#
University of Arizona
Tenured faculty members may be released from employment because of reorganization due to “budgetary or
programmatic considerations requiring program discontinuance, curtailment, modification or redirection.” As
with Arizona State University, the decision to reorganize can only be made after a review process conducted by
the Faculty Senate and which includes both faculty members and students. The review process must also
include a public forum to allow all members of the university community with an opportunity to express their
views. In cases involving a financial emergency, a review committee must review the reorganization plan and
present an evaluation that describes the “impact of the proposed reorganization upon students, faculty and staff,
the University as a whole, related activities outside the University, and the interest of higher education within
the state.”
See quote from Arizona State University above.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 601 K. 2.-5
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
In cases involving reorganization the review committee called for by ABOR-PM 6-201(K)(3)(a) shall
consist of faculty members nominated by the Committee on Committees and selected by the Faculty
Senate and students nominated by the Associated Students of the University of Arizona and selected by
the President. The review committee shall present its findings to the Faculty Senate. The Senate's
recommendations, together with the review committee's report, shall be forwarded to the President.
Within 30 days of a decision to terminate a program element, an affected faculty member may appeal
the decision to an appeal committee of faculty and administrators appointed by the President. The
appeal committee will make a recommendation to the President within 30 days of the filing of the
appeal. The President shall make the final decision.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.02 Reorganization
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
In cases involving financial emergency, the President shall ask the Faculty Senate to designate a review
committee composed of faculty and students to review the proposed plan for reorganization, as called
for by ABOR-PM 6-201(K)(3). The committee's review shall include a public forum to provide an
opportunity for all members of the University community to present their views on the impact of the
proposed reorganization.
Each faculty member whose position may be affected by the proposed reorganization shall be notified in
writing of the proposed action and shall be given an early opportunity to present his or her views in
person to the review committee and to the responsible administrator.
The review committee shall provide the President with a written evaluation of the proposed
reorganization no later than 90 days following the President's request, unless the President specifically
requests that the evaluation be provided in a shorter period. This evaluation shall include an assessment
of the impact of the proposed reorganization upon students, faculty and staff, the University as a whole,
related activities outside the University, and the interest of higher education within the state. The
committee shall maintain a record of its proceedings, including all written documents and statements
submitted to it.
The President shall decide whether or not to recommend the reorganization following receipt of the
review committee's evaluation. If the President rejects the committee's evaluation, the President shall
furnish the committee a written statement of the reasons for doing so.
The President shall present his or her recommendation relating to the proposed reorganization to ABOR
for approval. If ABOR approves the reorganization, each faculty member whose position is to be
eliminated shall receive written notice when the decision to eliminate his or her position is final.
A tenured faculty member who is released, or a nontenured faculty member who is released within an
appointment period, shall be entitled to a review of this decision in accordance with the procedures
provided in ABOR-PM 6-201(K)(6).
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.03 Financial
Emergencies
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
All employees are subject to termination for curricular reasons, which refers to “discontinuance, reduction in
size or reorganization of an administrative unit, project, program or curriculum.”
19.1 Persons Subject to Layoffs or Furloughs. All persons holding authorized professional positions are
subject to lay-off or furlough due to financial exigency or curricular reasons as outlined in the Nevada
System of Higher Education Code, Sections 5.4.5, 5.4.6 and 5.4.7.
19.2 Curricular Reasons Defined. "Curricular reasons" refers to the bona fide discontinuance,
reduction in size or reorganization of an administrative unit, project, program or curriculum for bona
fide reasons pertaining to the missions of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, resulting in the
elimination of employment positions.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
When curricular revisions are being considered that will result in the termination of positions, the process
should proceed according to several steps which involve the academic units and affected faculty members.
19.8.3 Faculty Senate Priority and New Program Committee Recommendations. The recommendations
of the Faculty Senate Priority and New Program Committee and the additional findings regarding
displacement of faculty for curricular reasons shall be considered by the appropriate vice president or
dean who shall either return the recommendations to the Faculty Senate Priority and New Program
Committee for reconsideration or approve said recommendations and forward them to the president for
final disposition. (B/R 3/03)
19.8.4 Procedures for Reviewing Curricular Revisions. Any curricular program proposal which has
completed the procedures outlined herein, has been approved by the Executive Vice President and
Provost (or appropriate administrator in the case of faculty units), and which necessitates termination
for curricular reasons shall be implemented according to the following steps: (B/R 10/98)
A. The academic department to be affected shall formally consider the proposed change and
make its recommendation to the pertinent academic unit committee.
B. The pertinent academic unit committee shall formally consider the proposed change and make
its recommendation to the academic unit faculty.
C. The academic unit faculty shall formally consider and act upon the recommendation of the
pertinent academic unit committee.
D. The recommendation of the academic department and of the academic unit faculty shall be
forwarded to the Faculty Senate and the Academic Council, each of which shall formally
consider the matter and forward its recommendation to the president.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
Tenured faculty members cannot be terminated in favor of retaining nontenured faculty members, except in
extraordinary circumstances which would result in a distortion of the program.
19.8.6 Order of Layoffs for Tenured Faculty. Tenured faculty on regular, continuing
contracts will not be terminated in favor of retaining nontenured faculty except in
extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the program would
otherwise result.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
University of Washington
Tenured faculty members may be removed from their positions due to program elimination.
The removal of tenured faculty, or the removal of non-tenured faculty prior to the end of a specified
term of appointment, may be effected upon program elimination within the University. Such removals
shall be termed "Removal for Reasons of Program Elimination."
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-52
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
Washington State University
Tenured faculty members may be removed from their positions due to the discontinuation of a program or
department of instruction, research, or service.
Termination of a tenured appointment or any other appointment before the end of the period of
appointment may be based on financial exigency or the discontinuance of a program or department of
instruction, research, or service.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
IV. Notice to Be Given and Removal Timelines
Arizona State University
Tenured faculty members who receive notice of termination shall be given a terminal year appointment, as long
as budgetary considerations permit it.
A tenured faculty member who is released shall be given a terminal year appointment unless the Board's
approval of the reorganization includes a specific determination that budgetary considerations do not
permit such an appointment.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K.7
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
Oregon State University and the University of Oregon
Faculty members will receive twelve months’ notice if they are terminated due to program or department
reductions or eliminations that are unconnected to a state of financial exigency.
If the staff member cannot be retained either in the position in which presently employed or in some
alternate position, maximum possible notice of termination shall be provided the academic staff member
being terminated for financial exigency, and in the case of faculty terminated because of program or
department reductions or eliminations not demonstrably related to a state of financial exigency, 12
months' notice shall be given.
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0315
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
University of Arizona
Faculty members must be notified in writing when program reorganization decisions will affect their positions.
Tenured faculty members who receive notice of termination shall be given a terminal year appointment, as long
as budgetary considerations permit it.
Each faculty member whose position may be affected by the proposed reorganization shall be notified in
writing of the proposed action and shall be given an early opportunity to present his or her views in
person to the review committee and to the responsible administrator.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.03 Financial
Emergencies
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
A tenured faculty member who is released shall be given a terminal year appointment unless the Board's
approval of the reorganization includes a specific determination that budgetary considerations do not
permit such an appointment.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K.7
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
The appointment of a tenured faculty member may not be terminated before the end of the academic
year following the one in which the decision to eliminate that position becomes final.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.02
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Faculty members whose positions will be terminated due to curricular reasons must be informed within three
working days of the proposed change. Notices must be made in writing and must contain a “reasonably
adequate” explanation of the reasons for the decision, as well as their rights to reconsideration. The document
referenced below describes the reconsideration process. More information about the timeline for termination is
included in the NSHE Code.
19.8.1 Notification of Proposed Layoffs. When the recommendations of the appropriate Faculty Senate
Priority and New Program Committee, as outlined in Chapter II, Section 6.3.7 and 6.3.8 of these
Bylaws, include the potential for displacement of faculty, prior to approval by the Executive Vice
President and Provost (or other appropriate administrator in the case of nonacademic faculty), faculty
potentially affected will be informed by their supervisor within three college working days of the
proposed change, the proposed time schedule and the possible alternatives to termination for curricular
reasons which may be available within the University or within other System institutions. (B/R 10/98)
19.11 Contents of Layoff Notices. Notice of the layoff of faculty members for financial exigency or
curricular reasons shall be in writing and shall furnish the faculty member with a reasonably adequate
statement of the basis for the decision to layoff the faculty member, a reasonably adequate description of
the manner in which the decision was arrived at and a reasonably adequate disclosure of the
information and data upon which the decision was based. The notice shall also inform the faculty
member of the right to reconsideration, the procedures for reconsideration and the identity of the person
or persons to whom a request for reconsideration should be directed.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
University of Washington
If tenured faculty members are terminated due to program eliminations, they must be notified in writing by the
dean, and they cannot be removed prior to the end of the academic year following the one in which the decision
has been made.
Each faculty member proposed by the dean for removal for reasons of program elimination shall be so
notified in writing by the dean pursuant to Chapter 26, Section 26-41, Subsection B.2.f.
When the President's decision to eliminate a program becomes final pursuant to Chapter 26, Section 2641, Subsection B.6, and the subsequent decision is made as to which faculty members notified under this
subsection are to be removed, each faculty member to be removed for reason of program elimination
shall be notified in writing by the dean and the effective date of such removal shall be stated. The dean
shall deliver a copy of this notification contemporaneously to the chair of the Adjudication Panel
(Chapter 28.) No faculty member shall be removed for reason of program elimination prior to the end of
the academic year following the one in which a final decision is transmitted to the faculty member.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-52
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
Washington State University
If tenured faculty members who hold twelve-month and nine-month appointments are terminated due to
“elimination of function,” they must receive at least twelve months’ and nine months’ (not including the
summer months) notice, respectively, in advance of their termination.
Termination may be effective for all faculty, including those on academic-year appointments, on any day
of the calendar year. Tenured faculty members holding annual (twelve-month) appointments shall be
entitled to receive at least twelve calendar months' notice in advance of termination for reasons of
financial exigency or elimination of function. Tenured faculty members holding academic-year (ninemonth) appointments shall be entitled to at least nine calendar months' notice in advance of termination
for reasons of financial exigency or elimination of function, provided that the three summer months, not
part of the usual academic year (May 16 to August 15 under the current academic calendar) shall not be
included when computing notice requirements.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf0
If less than the required notice is given prior to termination, faculty members must receive appropriate financial
compensation. If the affected faculty member acquires new employment before the effective date of
termination, that faculty member shall provide the University with appropriate notice.
Where less than the required notice is given prior to termination, the faculty member shall be entitled to
receive at the time of termination one-twelfth of his or her current annual salary, on an annual
appointment, or the faculty on an academic year appointment shall be entitled to one-ninth his or her
current annual salary for each month less the required notice.
In the event that a faculty member who has received notice of termination for reasons of financial
exigency or elimination of function secures new employment prior to the effective date of the
termination, he or she shall provide the University with immediate notice, including the effective date of
new employment. In these cases, the University shall waive the requirements for resignation notice that
would otherwise apply.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
V. Appeal Process
Arizona State University
If a reorganization is proposed that would affect the employment of tenured faculty members, those faculty
members must be notified in writing of the proposed action and given an opportunity to present their views to a
review committee.
b. Each faculty member whose position may be affected by the proposed reorganization shall be notified
promptly in writing of the proposed action and shall be given an early opportunity to present his or her
views in person to the review committee and to the responsible administrator.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 601 K. 2.-5
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
Tenured faculty members who receive notice of termination may file a written request for a review of the
decision with the President within fifteen days. The review process is outlined in detail in the document cited
below.
A tenured faculty member who is to be released, or a nontenured faculty member who is to be released
during an appointment term, shall be entitled to a review of this decision by filing a written request with
the president within fifteen days of receipt of notice of such release.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K-6
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
Oregon State University and the University of Oregon
Each institution sets up the formal and informal procedures through which faculty may initiate grievance
proceedings.
‘Grievance’ means a complaint by an academic employee that the employee was wronged in connection
with compensation, tenure, promotion or other conditions of employment or the employee's rights were
denied as to reappointment;
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0050
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
Grievance procedures for Oregon State University are described in the Oregon State University Faculty
Handbook (http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/handbook/grievance.html) and in the Oregon Administrative Rules
(beginning with 576-050-0010). Grievance procedures for Oregon University are described by the Office of
Academic Affairs (http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/content/chapter-iii#) and in the Oregon Administrative
Rules (beginning with 571-03-025).
University of Arizona
Tenured faculty members who receive notice of termination may file a written request for a review of the
decision with the President within fifteen (or thirty when programs are to be eliminated) days. The review
process is outlined in detail in the documents cited below.
A tenured faculty member who is to be released, or a nontenured faculty member who is to be released
during an appointment term, shall be entitled to a review of this decision by filing a written request with
the president within fifteen days of receipt of notice of such release.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K-6
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
A tenured faculty member who is to be released, or a nontenured faculty member who is to be released
during an appointment term, shall be entitled to a review as provided in ABOR-PM 6-201(K)(6) upon
written request filed with the President of the University within 15 days of receipt of notice of such
release.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.02
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
Within 30 days of a decision to terminate a program element, an affected faculty member may appeal
the decision to an appeal committee of faculty and administrators appointed by the President. The
appeal committee will make a recommendation to the President within 30 days of the filing of the
appeal. The President shall make the final decision.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.02 Reorganization
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Faculty members may request a reconsideration after receiving notice of layoff due to curricular review.
Requests for reconsideration must be received within 15 days of receipt of the layoff notice. The process is
outlined below.
19.12 Reconsideration Process. Within 15 calendar days after receipt of the notice of layoff, the faculty
member may request reconsideration of the decision to layoff, at which time the following provisions
and procedures are applicable:
19.12.1 Order of Procedure. The reconsideration process may include:
A. RESERVED
B. The soundness of the educational/professional judgments and the criteria for identification for
termination of the individual; but the recommendations of a faculty body on these matters will be
considered presumptively sound.
C. Whether the criteria are being properly applied in the individual case.
19.12.2 Employment Review Committees. In the event decisions are made to layoff faculty members
because of financial exigency or curricular reasons, the president shall establish one or more
Employment Review Committees. The president shall determine the number of persons to serve on the
committee(s), shall determine their terms of service and, in addition, shall choose one half of the
membership of the committee(s) including one student. The Faculty Senate shall elect one half of the
committee membership. The president and the Faculty Senate shall mutually agree on the appointment
of a chair, who must be a tenured faculty member. If the president and the Faculty Senate cannot agree
on the appointment of a chair, the president shall appoint the chair. The chair shall vote only in case of
a tie vote. No one who took part in making the specific recommendation to the president to layoff the
faculty member requesting the reconsideration may be a member of the Employment Review Committee.
19.12.3 Contents of Request for Reconsideration. The request for reconsideration shall be submitted in
writing to the president, together with the reasons, arguments and documentation supporting the request
for reconsideration. The president shall immediately send the request for reconsideration, together with
a copy of the notice of layoff, to the Employment Review Committee.
19.12.4 Hearings. The Employment Review Committee shall hold a hearing on the request for
reconsideration within 15 calendar days of its receipt or, given the number of requests that may be
received, as soon after that time limit as is feasible. The hearing shall be informal and nonadversarial in
nature. The committee shall have the discretion to consolidate hearings.
19.12.6 Administration's Response. The University administration shall have an opportunity to respond
to the contentions of the faculty member requesting reconsideration or to otherwise correct any
erroneous or misleading information presented to the committee.
19.12.7 President's Decision. The Employment Review Committee shall forward its written
recommendation to the president on the issue or issues presented by the request for reconsideration
within 10 calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing. The president shall make a decision within
5 calendar days after receipt of the recommendation. The president's decision shall be final and shall be
sent, in writing, to the faculty member requesting reconsideration.
19.12.8 Exclusive Means of Review. The review process involving financial exigency or
curricular reasons shall be the exclusive means of review of such decisions.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
University of Washington
In cases where tenured faculty members are terminated due to reasons of program elimination, those faculty
members may deliver an appeal to the chair of an Adjudication Panel and to the Secretary of the Faculty
Committee, who shall determine whether the decision to terminate the faculty member was reasonable and
made without unlawful discrimination. All tenured faculty members who are terminated must be given the
opportunity for a full review and hearing.
Each faculty member notified of removal for reason of program elimination may engage in the
administrative and conciliatory proceedings of Chapter 27. He or she may deliver an appeal to the chair
of the Adjudication Panel and to the Secretary of the Faculty as provided in Chapter 28, in which case a
Hearing Committee shall determine whether the faculty member was properly identified as a member of
the program eliminated; whether the procedures in this section were followed; whether the decision to
remove the faculty member was reasonable; and, if the faculty member so alleges, whether he or she
was unlawfully discriminated against because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age,
handicap, sexual orientation, or status as a disabled or Vietnam era veteran.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-52
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
No faculty member having tenure as defined in this chapter shall be removed from his or her position or
subjected to discriminatory reduction of salary until she or he has been given opportunity for a full
review and hearing as provided in Sections 25-62, 25-71, or Chapter 26, Section 26-31 as applicable to
the case, and in Chapter 28.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-53
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
VI. Placement in Other Units and Other Alternatives
Arizona State University
The institution will devote its “best efforts” to securing alternative appointments for faculty members whose
positions are to be terminated due to reorganization. It will also devote its “best efforts and available resources”
to making those faculty members aware of other professional opportunities.
Each university shall devote its best efforts to securing alternative appointments within the university for
any faculty member who is released as a result of reorganization. Each university shall devote its best
efforts and available resources to ensure that such faculty members are made aware of openings at
other Arizona universities and opportunities for retraining or further professional growth.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K.4
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
Oregon State University and the University of Oregon
Faculty members who cannot be retained may be moved to an alternate position, although this obligation of the
institution is not elaborated upon.
If the staff member cannot be retained either in the position in which presently employed or in some
alternate position, maximum possible notice of termination shall be provided . . .
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0315
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
University of Arizona
The institution will devote its “best efforts” to securing alternative appointments for faculty members whose
positions are to be terminated due to reorganization. It will also devote its “best efforts and available resources”
to making those faculty members aware of other professional opportunities.
Each university shall devote its best efforts to securing alternative appointments within the university for
any faculty member who is released as a result of reorganization. Each university shall devote its best
efforts and available resources to ensure that such faculty members are made aware of openings at
other Arizona universities and opportunities for retraining or further professional growth.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K.4
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
The University shall devote its best efforts to securing alternative appointments within the University in
positions for which the affected faculty member is qualified under existing criteria. The University shall
devote its best efforts to insure that such faculty members are made aware of openings at other Arizona
universities and opportunities for retraining for further professional growth.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.2
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
For faculty members who are to be terminated for curricular reasons, the University will take “all reasonable
steps” to identify suitable alternative appointments and place faculty members accordingly, provided that the
designated receiving department does not demonstrate that this arrangement would be unsuitable. Other options
will also be investigated, such as placement within other system institutions, early retirement options, and
retraining programs.
19.8.2 Alternatives to Layoffs. Among the alternatives to termination for curricular reasons to be
investigated jointly by each potentially affected faculty member's supervisor and dean and the
appropriate vice president are:
A. All reasonable steps will be taken to identify a suitable, alternative appointment within the
University for each faculty member who may be displaced. In consultation with the Faculty
Senate Priority and New Program Committee, the president and the appropriate vice president
shall designate appropriate receiving departments throughout the University for each potentially
affected faculty member. A displaced faculty member may be appointed to a vacancy in such a
designated receiving department unless the department demonstrates that the displaced faculty
member is not suitable for such vacancy or unless the threat of layoffs for curricular reasons is
removed. (B/R 10/98)
B. All reasonable steps should be taken to investigate suitable, alternative appointments within
other System institutions and to facilitate communication between each affected faculty member
and other System institutions, when requested to by said faculty member.
C. A careful review and evaluation of administrative appointment, early retirement options,
retraining programs, non-University employment opportunities, or other alternatives shall be
conducted and discussed with the affected faculty member.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
University of Washington
When tenured faculty members have been terminated due to program elimination, the University will make
“every reasonable effort” to place faculty members in other positions for which they are qualified.
The University shall make every reasonable effort to place faculty members notified of removal for
reason of program elimination in other University employment for which they are qualified with
comparable terms of employment. Priority in such employment shall be given to the faculty member in
accordance with University and state employment procedures. In addition to the required notification
period, special assignments with pay may be provided to enable the faculty member to prepare for
changed employment responsibilities.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-52
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
Washington State University
If programs are discontinued, the institution will make “reasonable and good faith efforts” to transfer affected
faculty members to other positions.
Before an appointment is terminated because of discontinuance of a program of instruction, research, or
service, the institution will make reasonable and good faith efforts to transfer the affected faculty
member to a suitable position for which he or she is qualified.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
VII. Reinstatement Procedures
Arizona State University
If a tenured faculty member is terminated due to program elimination and that program element is reinstituted
within three years, that faculty member must first be offered reappointment and given thirty days in which to
accept it.
In the event that the program element which has been terminated should be reinstituted within a period
of three years, new positions requiring qualifications and duties reasonably comparable to those of the
released tenured faculty member shall not be filled without first offering the appointment to the released
tenured faculty member. The released tenured faculty member must be given a reasonable time, not to
exceed thirty days, to accept or decline reappointment.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K.5
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
Oregon State University and the University of Oregon
If a faculty member is terminated for reasons of program or department reductions or eliminations, that faculty
member’s place cannot be filled or replaced within two years, unless that same faculty member is offered
reappointment and given a reasonable amount of time in which to accept the position.
If a tenured faculty member's appointment is terminated or if the appointment of a nontenured faculty
member is terminated before the end of the period of appointment because of financial exigency, or
because of program or department reductions or eliminations, the released faculty member's place will
not be filled by a replacement within a period of two years, unless the released faculty member has been
offered reappointment and a reasonable time within which to accept or decline it;
Oregon Administrative Rules, 580-021-0318
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_021.html
University of Arizona
If a tenured faculty member is terminated due to program elimination and that program element is reinstituted
within three years, that faculty member must first be offered reappointment and given thirty days in which to
accept it.
In the event that the program element which has been terminated should be reinstituted within a period
of three years, new positions consisting of duties reasonably comparable to those of the released tenured
faculty member shall not be filled without first offering reappointment to the released tenured faculty
member. The released tenured faculty member must be given a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days
within which to accept or decline reappointment.
University of Arizona, University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 3.18.2
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
See quote from Arizona State University above.
Arizona Board of Regents, Policy Manual, 6-201 K.5
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy%20Manual/6-201-Conditions%20of%20Faculty%20Service.pdf
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
If a faculty member’s position is terminated for curricular reasons and that position is reinstated within two
years, the removed faculty member must be offered reappointment at his or her previous rank, with twenty days
to accept the offer.
19.9 Restriction on Replacements. If a faculty member is laid off for the above stated reasons, the faculty
member's position will not be filled within a period of two years, unless a reasonable attempt to offer
reappointment has been unsuccessful or reappointment has been offered in writing and the faculty
member has not accepted the same in writing within 20 calendar days of receipt of the offer. The
reappointment referred to herein shall be at the faculty member's previous rank or range, inclusive of
all cost-of-living increases given during the layoff. All sick leave and other accrued benefits shall be
restored at the level present at the time of the layoff.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Bylaws
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
University of Washington
If a tenured faculty member is terminated for reasons of program elimination and that program is reinstated
within five years, the removed faculty member must be offered reappointment, with thirty days to accept the
offer.
In the event that the academic program which has been eliminated is reinstated within a period of five
years, new positions shall not be filled through normal appointment search procedures until removed
faculty members qualified for the position have been offered reappointment on terms at least
comparable to terms which applied to the position previously held. Such removed faculty members shall
be given 30 calendar days to accept or decline an offer of reinstatement.
University of Washington, Faculty Code and Governance, Section 25-52
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
Washington State University
If a tenured faculty member’s position is terminated for reasons of program discontinuation and that position is
reinstated within three years, the faculty member must be offered reappointment, with a reasonable period of
time in which to accept the offer.
If an appointment is terminated before the end of the period of appointment because of financial
exigency or because of discontinuance of a program of instruction, the released faculty member’s
appointed position will not be filled by a replacement within a period of three years, unless the released
faculty member is offered suitable reappointment and a reasonable time within which to accept or
decline the reappointment.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
Tenured faculty members who are reinstated within two years of termination may be reinstated with tenure.
That faculty member may be reinstated within a new department or unit, which will assume the tenure
obligations for that faculty member.
When a former faculty member who had tenure is reemployed in a comparable position within two
years, tenure may be given immediately, though the usual procedures must be followed.
If a tenured person takes a different faculty position within the institution on a permanent basis, the
receiving department must assume the tenure obligations accompanying the transfer. In the special case
of the formation of a new unit, the prior tenure of each faculty member will be transferred to the new
unit.
Washington State University, Faculty Senate, Faculty Manual, Section III
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
Documents Consulted
Arizona Board of Regents (2009). Conditions of faculty service. Policy Manual. Retrieved from
http://azregents.asu.edu/rrc/Policy Manual/6-201-Conditions of Faculty Service.pdf
Arizona State University. (n.d.). Academic Affairs Manual. Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd
Arizona State University. (2008). ACD 002: Definitions. Academic Affairs Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/acd002.html
Oregon State University. (2011). Faculty Handbook. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/handbook/
State of Oregon. (2011). Oregon University System. Oregon Administrative Rules. Oregon State Archives.
Retrieved from http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_tofc.html
University of Arizona, Office of the Provost. (2000). University Handbook for Appointed Personnel. Retrieved
from http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (2008). Section 19. Layoffs or furloughs. Bylaws. Retrieved from
http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/common_files/UNLV_Bylaws.pdf
University of Oregon, Office of Academic Affairs. (2009). Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of
Oregon. Retrieved from http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/content/promotion-tenure-guide
University of Oregon, Office of Academic Affairs. (2001). Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of
Oregon. General Conditions of Employment. Retrieved from
http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/content/chapter-iii#
University of Oregon, Office of Academic Affairs. (2001). Special conditions of employment of teaching
faculty. Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of Oregon. Retrieved from
http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/content/chapter-vi#
University of Oregon. (1999). Post Tenure Review. The University of Oregon Policy Library. Retrieved from
http://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/03000-human-resources/post-tenure-review
University of Washington. (2010). Faculty Code and Governance. UW Policy Directory. Retrieved from
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH25.html
Washington State Legislature. (2010). RCW 28B.20.130. Powers and duties of regents — General. Retrieved
from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.20.130
Washington State University, Faculty Senate. (n.d.). Section III. Faculty Manual. Retrieved from
http://facsen.wsu.edu/faculty_manual/Section_III_310.pdf
Charge 6: Review system counsel’s determination regarding tenure, including the protection that exists
in the Code and bylaws and the conditions in which tenure can be revoked. Recommend ways to protect
the rights of tenure and the mechanisms to do so.
Table of Contents
Meaning of Tenure ...............................................................................................................3
Tenure Home .......................................................................................................................3
Organizational Change and Curricular Review ..................................................................4
Justification for Termination of Faculty .............................................................................5
Placement of Terminated Faculty in Other Units ................................................................6
Reinstatement .......................................................................................................................6
Faculty Rights ......................................................................................................................7
Employment Review Committee .........................................................................................7
Questions Regarding Process and Protections .....................................................................8
Appendix ............................................................................................................................10
In the body of the response to Charge #6 I have included our analysis of the tenure protections in the NSHE
system and at UNR and have expanded that discussion to compare UNR with peer institutions
The Meaning of Tenure
In the Code, the actual definition of tenure is vague,indicating only that its purpose is to provide a faculty
committed to excellence, to promote academic freedom, and to provide a substantial degree of job security.
(3.1.2) none of these objectives, as laid out in the Code, indicates that tenure assures ongoing employment to
the faculty member.
The review of peer institutions reveals that the definition of tenure is fairly consistent across institutions, with
tenure defined as “a property right with the expectation of continued employment (Arizona State University)
and the “right…to hold a position without termination or discriminatory reduction in salary (University of
Washington), but every institution allows for the termination of tenured faculty under specified conditions.
Tenure Home
The question of whether tenure is in a department or the institution is one of considerable interest to faculty,
particularly because of the financial crisis spearheading curricular review. This concern was voiced by several
faculty during the Employment Review hearings this past year. It may well be that some of these questions
about tenure location have not been of great concern previously a) because there was no threat of job loss other
than “for cause,” or
b) because tenure was seen as protected by the institution, so departmental splits, reorganizations and
eliminations were not viewed as reducing one’s security…but now, under curricular review, these questions
become very important.
There is not a clear answer – the Code does not specify where tenure resides. There is no mention in the Code
or the Bylaws of “tenure home.” Bart Patterson, NSHE Vice Chancellor Administrative and Legal Affairs, has
issued the opinion that the Code ‘contemplates’ that tenure is granted in the unit/department (memo 2/28/2011)
He bases this on provisions in the Code that are completely open to interpretation. For example, he sites Title 2,
Chapter 3 3.3.1 (b1 and 2) which indicate that the president must seek a recommendation from the “appropriate
faculty” before exempting a faculty member from the probationary period or conferring tenure upon hire, but
this does not determine that tenure is in the department or unit. Likewise, language about reassignment, transfer
between institutions and evaluation (do not place the faculty member’s tenure clearly within an unit (Title 2,
3.4.2 (b, and c) and 3.4.6). The only argument supporting the department as the location of tenure is 3.3.1(b2)
which uses the language “the department within which the individual was hired…” It can be argued that
several sections of the Code instead suggest that tenure is granted at the institutional level, not at the department
level. For example, the Code indicates that while departments recommend tenure to the President, the President,
not the department chair, the college personnel committee, or the dean, is responsible for offering tenure to the
faculty member. Faculty are hired within particular departments, and departments can recommend tenure on
hire, but tenure is not granted by the department. A department may recommend a faculty member for tenure
and the College may support that recommendation, but the University Personnel Committee can recommend
differently, and the President can turn that person down. While the tenure process is initiated at the department
level, there is both a College level review and a University level review of the application, which indicates that
the institution at large, not just the department, has a stake in tenure.
Additionally, the Code (3.4.7c1) suggests that in the event of hiring a faculty person ‘with tenure’ the president
of the institution is to seek a recommendation from the unit but is not obligated to adhere to the unit
recommendation in making a recommendation to the regents. This implies that the department is not required
to approve tenure in order for it to be granted. It is also of note that tenure is clearly not within the NSHE
system, but it is within the institution (Code. Sec. 3.4.7 a and b).
Peer institutions vary in their clarity about where tenure is located. Arizona State University states that tenure is
granted by the President and tenured faculty members are located and tenured at specific campuses. Oregon
State on the other hand specifically indicates that faculty are tenured within a department and tenure is not
transferrable to another department or institution. At Washington State tenure is specifically granted within a
department or program. There is no such clarity in the NSHE Code.
Faculty should make their understandings and interpretations of tenure location clear and, before too
many changes are made in the code, should forward these.
Organizational Changes and Curricular Review
Section 2.1.3 of the UNR Bylaws refers to the process through which changes in the organization are
made. This section is consistent with section 5.4.6 of the NSHE Code which addresses curricular reasons for
termination of faculty members and the process for such terminations. Much of the NSHE Code’s consideration
of relinquishment of tenure or termination of tenure is not relevant to our current situation in which we are
considering the meaning of tenure under conditions of curricular review or financial exigency. We are therefore
not considering those situations in which faculty are terminated “for cause” or any other reason.
The NSHE Code and UNR Bylaws outline a fairly extensive procedure for the restructuring or elimination of a
program or department. It seems quite clear that if a program is eliminated, reduced in size or reorganized, the
tenured faculty positions in that program can be eliminated through this process. (Code, 5.4.6). If the program
or department is being eliminated due to financial exigency or curricular review, the faculty member’s position
is eliminated and with that, their tenure.
The 2011 Curricular Review document issued by the Office of the Provost (March 7, 2011) specifies the
application of 5.4.6 in the Code. This document lays out the way the department formally considers the
Provost’s decision to eliminate a department or unit (the show cause stage) and proceeds to discuss the process
including review by a college committee, a vote by the college, an appeals process to a senate committee and
then to the whole Senate and then finally to the Employment Review Committee. Departments are clearly
provided the opportunity to challenge the decision to reorganize, eliminate or reduce their unit in written
documents of defense.
Transparency and the perception of fairness would be enhanced if the affected departments were able to
defend their positions in person to the College committees considering their defense. Further, tenured faculty
are not included in the discussion about the elimination or reorganization of their department or unit until after
the have been targeted, a top-down process that seems to violate the spirit of shared governance
Justification for Termination of Faculty
The administration is required to provide only a “reasonably adequate” statement of the basis for the decision to
lay off the faculty member and a “reasonably adequate” description of the manner in which the decision was
arrived at and a “reasonably adequate “disclosure of the information and data upon which the decision-makers
relied (Code, 5.4.7 (f)). Last year this “reasonably adequate” basis was usually the closure of the faculty
member’s program as a result of curricular review and with that the elimination of their position. In a few
instances - for example when the entire program was not being eliminated - the “reasonably adequate” basis
was something else related to the faculty member’s value to the university in another capacity.
All of our peer institutions provide for removal of tenured faculty as a result of curricular review. Arizona State
stipulates that this can only occur after a “lengthy review process,” including both faculty and students and
allowing all members of the university community an opportunity to express their views. Further the
University of Oregon requires an affirmative action review prior to any decision being made in regard to
reductions or reorganizations, something UNR should carefully consider. In all of these institutions, there is
very little specific detail about the process that occurs when department are reorganized.
The process does allow flexibility but may also provide a potential source of arbitrariness and
unfairness.
Some faculty members are concerned that “curricular review” resulting in elimination or reorganization of their
program has been presented as the reason for termination of employees, but that curricular review actually
camouflaged the underlying reason of “financial necessity.” The Provost’s position on this is that while the
process of curricular review may have been necessitated by financial considerations, these financial
considerations were the impetus for the curricular review and not the reason for the elimination of the program.
This position would seem to be the only one he could take given the financial stressors operating on the
institution.
Using the process in this fashion does lead to the perception of unfairness and it seems that clarification
in the Code and Bylaws of the relationship between financial necessity and curricular review would be useful.
The process of curricular review is designed to downsize, eliminate or reorganize programs or units or
departments for bona fide reasons related to planning and the long term health of the University. The driver in
the current process of curricular review is financial crisis and this appears to our committee to violate the
underlying justification for curricular review. At the same time, we recognize that UNR has in place a process
through which organizational change occurs, and it may be that relying on this process is reasonable if the only
alternative is financial exigency. Yet, curricular review should be a long-considered, open, process in which
voices of faculty and other interested parties can be heard, debate and faculty engagement in the spirit of shared
governance can occur.
Given the severe time constraints within which this curricular review was conducted, while this review
process as conducted at UNR may adhere to the “letter of the law” we do not see it as reflecting the “spirit of
the law.”
Placement of Terminated Faculty in Other Positions
NSHE Code 5.4.7 b. indicates that faculty laid off for curricular or financial reasons shall be continued if
professional positions are available. UNR Bylaws 3.5.5 say that the university will first make every effort to
place the faculty member concerned in another appropriate qualified professional position within the
university. Other peer institutions use a similar language, such as “devote its best efforts to securing
alternative appointments” (Arizona State), “take all reasonable steps to identity and place them in suitable
alternative appointments” (UNLV, and “make every reasonable effort to place faculty members in other
positions” (University of Washington). While some faculty members who were laid off at UNR during the last
round of cuts were offered RCUFs, I think we can agree that the University did not make every effort to place
faculty who were laid off in other professional positions. The administration seemed reluctant to place laid off
faculty in other departments or units in which they may have fit. While it may be difficult for the faculty
member as well as the department to have a laid off faculty member “forced on them,” extreme situations might
justify extreme measures.
The University needs to take this section of the Code and Bylaws seriously and to demonstrate that they
have made “every effort.”
Reinstatement
UNR Bylaws (3.5.5) indicate that if a tenured faculty member is terminated, the position will not be filled
within a period of two years unless the affected faculty member has been offered reinstatement at the same
salary, rank, and tenure status. All of the institutions our committee reviewed have a policy of reinstatement if a
program is reinstituted or the position is reinstated. At UNLV, if a position is terminated for curricular reasons
and the position is reinstated within two years, the faculty member who was removed must be offered
reappointment, and at Arizona State, the time is three years. At the University of Washington the tenured
faculty member who was terminated must be offered reappointment if the program is reinstated within five
years.
Faculty Rights
Several members of our Senate committee members reported that faculty in their programs were not aware that
if a department was reduced or reorganized that they would not be protected by tenure. Clearly, tenure rights
are being weakened, not only here at UNR, but in other institutions. For example, at the eight-campus
University of Louisiana System, the Board of Regents approved changes that destroyed key elements of tenure
protection because of budget cuts to the system, similarly to what has occurred here at UNR, including
eliminating tenure protection for faculty in layoffs if the professor’s programs have been discontinued and
reducing notice requirements from two semesters to one if a particular level of budget cuts is anticipated.
Faculty requests for greater involvement in the process were rejected by the Board. Faculty had requested, for
example, that if their program were eliminated but if courses were still offered in that program, their jobs should
be protected (A parallel with the layoff of German faculty at UNR). On the other hand, the University of
Missouri system provides more faculty rights, for example, giving consideration to “seniority in terms of
academic rank and length of service in the event that certain continuous appointments must be terminated
because of financial exigencies.”
Our committee suggests that faculty be informed of their rights or lack thereof under conditions of
curricular review, including the process for deciding who is terminated and whether tenure or seniority is
considered.
Employment Review Committee
The next issue is the final appeal the terminated faculty member can make to the Employment Review
Committee. The purpose of this appeal process has been misunderstood and is unclear. The actual scope of the
review as defined in the Code is very narrow. The appeal is limited to whether there is “sufficient evidence” to
support the “specific decision” to lay off the particular faculty member or whether there has been “material
deviation” from the procedures. There can be no reconsideration of the policy decision to discontinue or
reorganize the program of which the faculty member is a part (NSHE Code 5.4.7 (g). However, faculty using
the process have tended to perceive it as an opportunity to show why they in particular should not be let go,
while the administration’s position has been that the only reason they are being let go is that their program is
being eliminated or otherwise reorganized. So there is really nothing for them to argue. The only exception is
when not all members of the department that is being reorganized are being let go, leading perhaps to a faculty
member challenging the reasons that some faculty have been retained and others laid off. Yet, it is extremely
difficult to argue that the administration should have made a choice different than the one they made since they
are able to offer a justification for the decision and their justification need only be “reasonably adequate.”
Further, the burden of proof is on the faculty to show that another choice should have been made.
Although the NSHE Code 5.4.7 (Procedures for Furlough, Pay Reduction or Termination of Employment Due
to Financial Exigency or Curricular Reasons) refers to faculty being terminated as a result of financial exigency
or curricular review, in fact the actual process leaves almost no room for review of those faculty. The review
process wrongly communicates to faculty that they can appeal their particular case based on their merit. The
only real basis for the appeal seems to be when a faculty member can show that they are actually not a member
of the program being eliminated, or they can show malfeasance.
This final appeal process and purpose needs to be carefully rewritten so that either it is allowing the
department one final chance to save itself, or it is saying to the faculty members, basically, if you feel that you
are the victim of discrimination or wrongdoing, this is your chance to appeal, but do not present us with your
publication record, grant record or anything else that would be relevant to evaluating you as a member of the
academic community.
Another related question is the degree to which the Employment Review Committee can evaluate or assess the
processes and procedures that occurred at the departmental level. The 2010 ERC interpreted 5.4.7.(g) 1 to
mean that they could not consider the policy decisions at the departmental or program level, even though there
may have been some irregularities or some questionable processes that led to the decision to downsize or
eliminate certain programs.
Questions Regarding Process and Protection
While tenure does not protect a faculty member if the program with which they are affiliated is eliminated, there
remain a number of questions related to tenure which deserve careful consideration by the Senate and the
faculty:
In the case of reorganization or reduction of a unit, what role does tenure play? It is clear that if an
entire unit is eliminated, the faculty position is eliminated, hence tenure offers no protection, whether it is
situated in the institution or the unit. But when only some faculty are to be let go, what role does tenure play?
If a department loses four of their seven faculty, who decides which faculty go? What if all are tenured? Will
all lose their jobs with three being hired back through a competitive process? Who will establish the definition
of the position and the criteria for rehiring? We did not find any information in the code or bylaws that
addressed these important questions of faculty rights.
If a program is reorganized, for example if two units are merged, and decreased in size, how will layoffs be determined and by whom? Who will determine the criteria? Will the department chairs recommend to
the Dean and the Provost? Will the Provost decide to fire everyone and then re-establish positions?
If a faculty member was tenured in a department that no longer exists as a result of previous
reorganizations in the University (such as is the case in Education, where does that faculty member’s tenure lie?
If a department is renamed or moved, should all faculty have their tenure documents redrawn?
If a faculty member is tenured in one department, but most of their funding comes from other sources
(as is the case for many faculty in Extension), and Extension is dramatically downsized, does their tenure in the
department protect them or are they laid off because Extension is downsized?
How does one decide where a faculty member is tenured if that person has a joint appointment? If the
tenure comes from one department but the other program in which the person is joint is eliminated, does the
person automatically return to the department in which they have tenure? (Do MOUs always cover these
contingencies?)
I would like to thank the members of the Committee, particularly Duncan Aldrich and Ann Medaille, and the
members of the subcommittees for their hard work gathering and reviewing material and providing information
and interpretations for this report.
Respectfully Submitted,
.
Mary White Stewart, Chair
Campus Affairs Committee
Subcommittee: Peer Institution Review
Ann Medaille, Chair, Libraries
Members:
David Fenimore, English
Nancy LaTourette, Computer Science and Engineering
Subcommittee: UNR Bylaws and Code Tenure Review
Mary White Stewart, Chair, Sociology
Members:
Duncan Aldrich, Libraries
Shannon Taylor, College of Education
Barbara Kohlenberger, Medical School
Senate Liaison: Steven Lafer, College of Education
Document from Bart Patterson re: tenure home
Nevada System of Higher Education
System Administration System Administration
2601 Enterprise Road 5550 W. Flamingo Rd., Suite C-1
Reno, NV 89512-1666 Las Vegas, NV 89103
Phone: (775) 784-4901 Phone: (702) 889-8426
Fax: (775) 784-1127 Fax: (702) 889-8492
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chancellor Klaich
NSHE Presidents
FROM: Bart Patterson, Vice Chancellor
Administrative & Legal Affairs
CC: Faculty Senate Chairs
RE: Tenure Assignments
DATE: February 28, 2011
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Issue
I have been asked a number of questions pertaining to tenure assignments. The most fundamental question concerns
whether a person is tenured in a particular department or program, or is simply tenured in the university/college as a
whole. The primary ramification of this interpretation pertains to lay-off or termination of tenured faculty based on
curricular review or declaration of financial exigency. Pursuant to my responsibility under the Code, I am providing
you with my opinion interpreting the Code.
Code Interpretation of Tenure Assignment
It is my opinion that faculty are tenured in a particular department or program at a college/university. Although
colloquially an individual may be referred to as being tenured at the college/university, the language and structure of
the Code contemplates that tenure is granted in a particular administrative unit. The reasons for this opinion are
stated below.
Tenure is awarded in two ways under the Code. The primary method of tenure is through a faculty member
becoming employed at a college/university in a tenure track position, and after meeting the requirements for tenure,
being approved for tenure by the president of the institution and the Board of Regents. The second method of being
awarded tenure is by tenure upon hire. If the individual has previously been tenured at another institution, the award
of tenure requires only the approval of the president. If the individual has not previously been tenured, Board of
Regents approval is also required.
The Code is replete with references that the award of tenure is inextricably connected with a particular administrative
unit of the college/university.1 For example, Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1(b1) provides a process for exempting a
faculty member from serving a probationary period, but requires the president to first seek a recommendation from
the “appropriate faculty.” Likewise, Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1(b2) pertaining to tenure upon hire also requires
consultation with the “appropriate faculty.” In fact, subsection b2 provides that the president must report tenure upon
hire appointments to the Board of Regents, and include “the department within which the individual was hired and
whether the faculty of such department voted to approve such tenure upon hire.” Further, Board of Regents approval
of tenure requires the approval process to be through “regular personnel procedures” (see Title 2, Chapter 3, Section
3.4.1) which includes a requirement for evaluation of a tenure application based in part on the rating of “their
respective administrative units.” Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2(b). The Code also provides that tenure evaluation is
based on standards developed by the member institutions and “their respective administrative units.” Title 2, Chapter
3, Section 3.4.2(c). With respect to administrators with tenure that are reassigned, the Code requires reassignment
within an “appropriate capacity within the member institution.” Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.6. Finally, in regard to
a transfer of tenure between NSHE institutions, the process again requires consultation with the “appropriate faculty”
with a report to the Board of Regents as to “the department within which the individual was hired and whether the
faculty of such department voted to approve such tenure upon hire.” Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.7(c)(1).
Moreover, the Code further provides that if the tenured faculty member’s “administrative unit” is transferred to
another institution, the tenured appointment transfers with the unit. Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.7(c)(2).
1 For the purpose of simplicity, this opinion references only the applicable university tenure provisions. Identical provisions are also found with respect to community college (see equivalent subsections of
Title 2, Chapter 4) and state college faculty (see equivalent subsections of Title 2, Chapter 7). For example, Code section 3.3.1(b1) above is Section 4.3.1(b1) for community college faculty and Section
7.3.1(b1) for state college faculty.
Based on the above, it is my opinion that the Code contemplates that faculty are tenured to a particular
administrative unit/program/department within a college/university based on their area of academic expertise. That
assignment is expected to follow consultation with the particular department or other administrative unit.
This opinion is bolstered by the specific provisions pertinent to curricular review and financial exigency that permit
layoff within a particular administrative unit. For example, Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.5(b) provides that faculty
members may be furloughed, have pay reduced or be laid off based on a declaration either as to the System, a system
institution, or a specific administrative unit. Likewise, Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.6 provides that a “faculty
member may be laid off because an administrative unit, project, program or curriculum has been discontinued,
reduced in size, or reorganized for bona fide reasons pertaining to the missions of the System institutions resulting in
the elimination of the faculty member’s position.” None of these provisions provide any specific protection solely
for tenured faculty.
Changes in Tenure Assignment
The Code does not specifically address a change in tenure assignment. However, as the Code grants the authority to
the president to approve tenure (initially with Board of Regents approval), and further grants the president the sole
authority to make tenure upon hire decisions and to accept transfer of tenure from another NSHE institution, subject
only to consultation with the particular department and report to the Board of Regents, it is my opinion that the
president likewise has the authority to reassign a tenured faculty member, without Board of Regents approval, to
another department or administrative unit in the event the tenured faculty member’s unit has been closed or
reorganized, or in circumstances where the faculty member seeks reassignment for other reasons. However, it would
be expected that such reassignment would not occur without consultation with the faculty member and any impacted
departments/units. It would also be expected that such reassignment would be in an “appropriate capacity,” i.e. a unit
in which the faculty member’s academic expertise is applicable.
NSHE institutions, to the extent their bylaws do not address assignment or reassignment of tenured faculty, may
wish to adopt more specific provisions that address the process employed in making these decisions. Alternatively,
Code changes could be adopted to establish a process system-wide.
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
April 21, 2011
Informational Item
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINANCIAL EXIGENCY AND CURRICULAR REVIEW
AMENDMENTS
Financial Exigency Amendments
 Sections 5.4.5 and 5.4.6--financial exigency and curricular review are separated into stand
alone sections.
 Section 5.4.5(d)--language is added to provide that units affected by lay offs, furlough or pay
reduction are given the opportunity to present alternatives and requiring the criteria for
selection of less than all the staff in an affected unit to be in writing.
 Section 5.4.6(a)--"is threatened with" changed to "is given notice of."
 Section 5.4.6(b)--language is added requiring a written policy regarding the efforts to be made
by administration regarding the possible continuation in employment of faculty who are being
laid off; the policy is established by the president after consultation with faculty senate.
 Section 5.4.6(c)—language is added to require that offer of reappointment is with tenure if the
institution intends within two years to offer tenure track position in former faculty member’s
subject area.
 Section 5.4.6(f)3--language is added to give administration the opportunity to respond in
writing before the reconsideration hearing; any such written response must be served no later
than three days before the hearing.
 Section 5.4.6(f)4--language is added to require audio recording of the hearing and the faculty
member is given a copy upon request.
 Section 5.4.6(f)6--language is added to clarify that administration may respond at the
reconsideration hearing.
 Section 5.4.6(h)--a new section is added to clarify that notices and documents may be served
electronically, by mail or hand-delivered.
Curricular Review Amendments:
 Ch. 1, Sec. 1.1(f)--language is added to clarify that "curricular reasons" includes adverse
economic conditions.
 Sections 5.4.7 and 5.4.8--these sections now solely address curricular review.
 Section 5.4.7--language is added: 1. to include "adverse economic conditions" in curricular
reasons; 2. requiring the academic planning process to include consultation with the faculty
senate; 3. affected units are given the opportunity to suggest alternatives; and 4. if less than all
the faculty in a unit are selected for lay off, the administration's selection criteria must be in
writing.
 Section 5.4.8(a)--"is threatened with" changed to "is given notice of."
 Section 5.4.8(b)--language is added requiring a written policy regarding the efforts to be made
by administration regarding the possible continuation in employment of faculty who are being
laid off; the policy is established by the president after consultation with faculty senate.
 Section 5.4.8(c)--language is added to require that offer of reappointment is with tenure if the
institution intends within two years to offer tenure track position in former faculty member’s
subject area.
 Section 5.4.8(f)3--language is added to give administration the opportunity to respond in
writing before the reconsideration hearing; any such written response must be served no later
than three days before the hearing.
 Section 5.4.8(f)4--language is added to require audio recording of the hearing and the faculty
member is given a copy upon request.


Section 5.4.8(f)6--language is added to clarify that administration may respond at the
reconsideration hearing.
Section 5.4.8(h)--a new section is added to clarify that notices and documents may be served
electronically, by mail or hand-delivered.
CODE REVIEW TASK FORCE
REPORT ON REVIEW OF FINANCIAL EXIGENCY AND CURRICULAR REVIEW IN THE BOARD OF
REGENTS CODE
April 2, 20111
The Code Review Task Force2 was formed by Vice Chancellor for Administration and Legal Affairs,
Bart Patterson on November 23, 2010 and asked to, among other things, review the financial exigency and
curricular review procedures in Chapter 5 of the Code. The Task Force undertook its review of financial
exigency and curricular review at meetings held on December 7, 2010, January 20, 2011, February 10, 2011,
February 17, 2011, March 3, 2011 and March 17, 2011.
As a result of discussions at these meetings, as well as research and other work undertaken between
meetings, a number of proposed amendments to the Code are recommended by the Task Force. Both a bullet
point summary and the complete proposed language of the amendments are attached. Many of the ideas
which were discussed and which are recommended arise from the UNR experience last Fall using the existing
Code procedures on curricular review. It is believed that the proposed amendments will help clarify these
procedures. The Task Force discussed many other ideas for amendment to the financial exigency and
curricular review procedures, but could not reach agreement. These ideas, and various views expressed by
Task Force members, are described below.
I. Recommended Code Amendments.
First, the Task Force suggests separating the financial exigency and curricular review sections because
it is believed that as written the procedures are easily confused. Under the proposed amendments, there
would be two Code sections devoted entirely to financial exigency and two Code sections devoted to curricular
review.
In both the sections on financial exigency and curricular review, the Task Force suggests similar
language that would achieve the following:
a. Provide that the administrative units, projects, programs or curriculums that be affected by lay offs,
furloughs or pay reductions are given the opportunity to present alternatives and require the criteria
for selection of less than all the staff in an affected unit to be in writing. Remove the language "is
threatened with" and change it to "is given notice of."
b. Add language requiring a written policy regarding the efforts to be made by administration regarding
the possible continuation in employment of faculty who are being laid off; the written policy would be
established by the president after consultation with faculty senate.
c. Add language to give administration the opportunity to respond in writing before the reconsideration
hearing; any such written response must be served no later than three days before the hearing.
d. Add language to require audio recording of the reconsideration hearing and the faculty member is
given a copy upon request.
e. Add language to clarify that administration may respond at the reconsideration hearing.
f.
Add a new section to clarify that notices and documents may be served electronically, by mail or
hand-delivered.
g. Add a new section to clarify that an offer of reappointment must be made with tenure if an institution
intends to hire tenure track faculty in the former faculty member’s subject area.
1. This report replaces an earlier draft dated February 28, 2011.
2. The Code Review Task Force members are: Brooke Nielsen (Chair), Mary Dugan (UNR), John Albrecht (DRI, GBC, TMCC), Susan
O’Brien (UNLV), Angela Brommel (NSC), Larry Hamilton (UNLV), Jannet Vreeland (UNR), Rob Correales (UNLV), David Ryfe (UNR),
Judy Stewart (CSN), Jim Strange (WNC), Steve Bale (TMCC).
In addition, the Task Force recommends that the definition of “curricular reasons” be amended to clarify
that “adverse economic conditions” are included. This language is proposed in recognition of the fact that
curricular review is most often driven by resource allocation. The Task Force also acknowledged that under an
ongoing academic planning process, resource shortages could be anticipated and appropriate action taken.
However, a relatively sudden economic downturn, such as the current recession, may result in the need for
reductions to occur in a shorter time frame. In addition, curricular review is the preferred process to address
budget shortfalls which cannot be addressed through less drastic means. Under curricular review, faculty are
given longer notice of layoffs, and layoffs, under the proposed amendments, would be the result of a
transparent, collaborative process.
II. Other Issues Discussed.
A. Consolidation of Scope of Review.
The Task Force considered whether to consolidate the issues which may be considered by an
Employment Review Committee on appeal. The following language was drafted for both financial exigency
and curricular review, but is not included in the proposed amendments:
The faculty member requesting reconsideration may have an advisor. Evidence presented must
possess reasonably probative value, materiality and relevancy to the employment decision. The faculty
member requesting reconsideration has the burden of showing:
i. a material deviation from the procedures established on which such a specific decision to furlough,
reduce pay or to lay off has been made; or
ii. there is insufficient evidence to support the specific decision to furlough, reduce pay or to lay off;
iii. or both.
Some members of the Task Force supported this amendment because it consolidates the issues which can be
reviewed into one section and is not a substantive change. However, other Task Force members felt that there
should be a substantive change to place the burden of proof on administration or revise or eliminate that
prohibition on review of the policy decision to declare financial exigency or to undertake curricular review.
B. Effective Date of Layoff Notice.
The Task Force discussed whether the effective date of layoff notices should be changed. The
following language was drafted to shorten the second notice period for layoffs, but is not included in the
proposed Code amendments:
If a faculty member is notified of a lay off for curricular reasons on or before December 1 of the faculty
member's current contract year, the layoff shall not be in effect until the following June 30. If a faculty
member is notified of a lay off for curricular reasons after December 1 but before May 1 of the faculty
member's current contract year, the layoff shall not be in effect until December 31 in the next contract
year.
Some of the Task Force members felt that this amendment would be appropriate in light of the Board of
Regents’ action in 2005 to shorten the time periods for notice of nonreappointment for non-tenured faculty
hired after that time. They noted that the time period for layoff notices, in Section 5.4.6(d), could allow as much
as 19 months of notice if the layoff notice is given after December 2 or later (the layoff notice would be effective
June 30 of the subsequent contract year). It was argued that this amendment would make the two notice
periods more similar and would align them more with the notice periods given to non-tenured faculty.
However, faculty representatives strongly objected to this idea because faculty whose layoffs would be
effective on December 31 would not be able to seek other employment in the normal higher education hiring
cycle. Faculty also felt it diminished tenure to try to align the notice period for tenured faculty with that of nontenured faculty.
The Task Force also discussed a proposal to make layoff notices effective one year after service of the
notice on tenured faculty and effective six months after service on non-tenured faculty. This proposal was not
supported because it was believed that this would make the process more chaotic and again, would not always
allow faculty to seek other employment in the normal higher education hiring cycle.
C. Layoff of Non-tenured Faculty by Notice of Nonreappointment.
The Task Force considered whether the Code should be changed to clarify that institutions may give
notices of non-reappointment to non-tenured faculty in order to maintain the employment of a tenured faculty
member whose unit, project, program or curriculum has been eliminated or reduced in size. This proposal
would amend Sections 5.4.6(b) of the current Code. Vice Chancellor Bart Patterson advised that under current
Code language non-tenured faculty may be given notices of nonreappointment. In other words, the prohibition
on termination of faculty in order to retain other faculty which is found in Sec. 5.4.6(b) of the Code, would not
apply to non-tenured faculty who may be given notices of non-reappointment. Some Task Force members felt
that specific language to this effect should be added in both financial exigency and curricular review for
purposes of clarity.
This proposal led to an in depth discussion about the idea of retaining tenured faculty by transfer into
other subject areas in which they are qualified to teach. A scenario was proposed in which non-tenured faculty
might be given notices of non-reappointment to facilitate the retention of tenured faculty who could transfer into
the open position. It was acknowledged by everyone that transfer of tenured faculty to other disciplines should
only occur in accordance with the applicable institutional procedures. Some Task Force members felt that this
should at least be an option that is available for consideration by administration, but also noted that such
actions could adversely impact the ability of institutions to recruit in the future.
Although termination of any faculty is not desirable, it was suggested that there could be situations
where it would be in the institution’s best interest in order to retain tenured faculty, particularly in community
colleges and smaller institutions where faculty are qualified in multiple areas. Community college faculty
representatives requested that each institution be allowed to determine this in response to their individual
needs.
The Task Force will consult further with Vice Chancellor Patterson on this issue and may make a
recommendation in the future.
D. Due Process and Tenure Home.
Legal research was conducted to confirm that procedures provided in the Code for lay off, furlough or
reduction in pay as a result of financial exigency or curricular review satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment
requirements of due process. In light of this research, it appears that the current reconsideration procedures
under financial exigency and curricular review meet and exceed the constitutional due process requirements of
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Faculty are given written notice of the basis of a decision, and afforded
the opportunity at a hearing to challenge both the process followed and the specific decision to layoff, furlough
or reduce in pay. In particular the “insufficient evidence” standard would allow faculty to challenge a decision
on many different grounds, including the argument that the decision was “arbitrary and capricious” or
discriminatory. Although the policy decision to declare financial exigency or to conduct curricular review
cannot be reconsidered, the scope of review appears to be broad enough to allow arguments at the hearing
that cannot be anticipated here.
The issue of tenured faculty’s “academic home” was discussed at length. If a unit, program or
curriculum are eliminated, then the faculty tenured in that area may be laid off. “Tenure home” is not defined in
the Code and this is a legal issue that was addressed by the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Legal
Affairs in an opinion issued on February 28, 2011 (see attached). The opinion concludes that faculty are
tenured in their particular department or program at a college or university. Reassignment of tenure may also
occur with the president’s approval. It is expected that such reassignment would only occur after consultation
with the affected unit.
E. Miscellaneous Issues and Ideas Discussed by Task Force.
Although many different issues and ideas were discussed by the Task Force, the amendments which
are described in Sec. I above are offered as practical clarifications of the Code procedures which help insure
collaboration between administration and faculty, and at the same time continue to allow for institutional
variation. Other issues and ideas which were considered are listed below (a brief statement of some of the
pros or cons expressed by Task Force members may be included in italics):
1. Draft a third process, between financial exigency and curricular review, which would require Board
approval.
The existing Code and proposed amendments provide appropriate processes to address adverse
economic conditions in the System.
2. Should curricular review be conducted the same way at each institution?
The existing Code and the proposed amendments provide a basic framework for curricular review and
each institution should have some ability to tailor the process.
3. Restrict the evidence that is allowed to be presented at the reconsideration hearing.
The existing Code and proposed amendments give faculty broad leeway to present arguments and
documentation; this should not be limited.
4. Should outside review be part of the curricular review process?
Outside review would be too cumbersome.
5. Should a seniority system be used to determine faculty layoffs?
The existing Code and proposed amendments provide flexibility and transparency in the decisionmaking process; use of a seniority system should not be mandated.
6. Add language requiring consultation with faculty senates if the Board of Regents immediately implements a
financial exigency.
The existing Code already requires consultation with faculty senates before a declaration of financial
exigency; all Board action will take place at a public meeting and both administration and faculty
representatives will be present and have the opportunity to speak regarding an immediate
implementation of financial exigency by the Board..
7. Adopt AAUP Guidelines for declaration of financial exigency that place the burden of proof on
administration.
The existing Code and suggested amendments insure consultation with faculty senates, require
administration to provide an appropriate explanation of rationale and criteria, and provide due process
for affected faculty. Faculty representatives requested the AAUP guidelines be adopted to retain the
burden of proof at the administrative level, since the decision to declare an exigency can be made
without faculty support.
8. Add “demonstrably bona fide” to criteria for declaring financial exigency.
The existing criteria for declaration of financial exigency are adequate because they already require
consultation with the chancellor, presidents and faculty senates, and essentially require consideration
of all available financial options for reduction of expenditures before a recommendation is made to the
Board of Regents.
9. Add “demonstrably” in front of “bona fide” in Sec. 5.4.7 regarding lay offs for curricular reasons.
It was suggested that the word “demonstrably” would not add anything significant to the definition of
“bona fide.”
10. Require consultation with the Faculty Senates regarding criteria used for selecting faculty for layoff.
The proposed amendments and current Code already require involvement of faculty senates. It is
believed that in light of the proposed amendments, the establishment of selection criteria would occur
after consultation with the faculty senates.
11. Include retraining in efforts to retain faculty selected for lay off.
It is assumed the institution would lack funds for retraining, but an institution is not prohibited from
considering retraining.
12. Require all offers of reappointment to be with previous rank, tenure and salary level.
This may make offers of reappointment less likely if an offer with tenure is mandated. Also, the
institutions already have the option of offering tenure on hire. Faculty representatives felt it appropriate
to reappoint with previous rank, tenure, and salary level as this only applies to reappointment within two
years.
13. Is it clear that under Sec. 5.4.7, the phrase “the said process” in the proposed amendment to “Curricular
Reason for Lay Off,” includes consultation with faculty senate both under the academic planning process
and “adverse financial conditions”?
It is intended that consultation with faculty senates would occur under both.
14. The prohibition on challenging the “policy decision” to declare financial exigency or engage in curricular
revisions, should be eliminated.
The Task Force members discussed and debated this issue extensively. Although an affected faculty
member cannot challenge the policy decision itself, the Code sets forth a detailed process that must be
followed by the administration, and administration is required to articulate the rationale used for any
layoffs, furloughs or reductions in pay. Thus, a faculty member would have the opportunity to argue
that the decision to layoff, furlough, or reduce in pay should be reconsidered if he or she can show a
material failure to follow the process and/or failure to have legitimate reasons for the actions taken.
Many faculty representatives requested this prohibition be eliminated.
While faculty senate consultation is required, a decision to declare exigency or reduce/eliminate a
program may occur with or without support of the faculty senates. Consequently, faculty requested that
AAUP guidelines recommending that hearings for terminated faculty members include consideration of
the existence and extent of the condition of financial exigency or hardship be adopted.
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
April 21, 2011
Agenda Item # 9
UNR Faculty Senate 2010-11
Academic Standards Committee
Report
Members
Justin Blum, Libraries
Charles Coronella, Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering
George Danko, Mining Engineering
Maureen Cronin, Associate Registrar (Committee Chair)
Mary Groves, Managerial Sciences
Nancy Markee, Advising Center
Louis Niebur, Music
Alina Solovyova, Teaching and Learning
Kristi Van Gorder, College of Liberal Arts
The following report is a summary of the activities for the 2010-2011 Academic Standards Committee. The
report is divided into four major parts. Section I describes the charges that were given to the committee.
Section II provides the general process that was used to form the recommendations. Sections III to VII provide
the committee’s recommendations to each of the charges. The report also includes three appendices.
Section I:
Summary of Charges
Standing Charges:
7. Review ASC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
8. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the ASC. Consider
whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
9. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting ASC objectives, and report
recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
10. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues
related to ASC charges and objectives.
11. Appoint a liaison from the ASC to the Core Curriculum Board, and another liaison to the Academic
Advising Advisory Board. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these boards and the
Faculty Senate.
Additional Charges – to be completed as soon as possible:
1. Review NSHE’s General Ed and Transfer Policy Proposal. Make recommendations to the Senate
regarding concerns that should be discussed/investigated further or to endorse the proposal as written.
2. Review the request to change the admission policy, requiring a new or transfer student to obtain an
instructor’s signature prior to adding a class after the class has begun. Make recommendations to the
senate regarding concerns that should be discussed/investigated further or to endorse the proposal as
written.
3. As the implementation of PeopleSoft proceeds, the Committee will, at the request of the Executive
Board, review academic policy issues not addressed in our current system and/or policies that require
revision prior to implementation of the new system.
4. Investigate the pros and cons of requiring all undergraduates to declare an academic major by the time
they have completed 60 credits.
Section II:
Process
Standing Charge 1:
2009-2010 Committee Recommendation:
UNR should have a single webpage regarding Academic Integrity (AI) hosted by the Faculty Senate.
Any unit who wants to address academic integrity should link to this single webpage. The website
should contain:
a. A brief Code of Ethics for students;
b. A copy of pp. 72-73 from the 2010-11 UNR General Catalogue “Section IV: “Academic
[Standards] Integrity”;
c. A copy of the NSHE Board of Regents Code: Title 2, Chapter 6;
d. A link to the Office of Student Conduct “Academic Standards for Students” (this part also
contains NSHE policy)
e. The ASUN student “Honor Code”;
f. A link to examples of academic integrity issues (plagiarism) from other University websites
e.g., Purdue, Northwestern, etc.;
g. Student and faculty responsibilities to prevent and reduce academic dishonesty on campus;
and
h. Sample language for use in course syllabuses concerning academic integrity.
Action Taken: The 2010-2011committee took action to develop an academic integrity website. The original
recommendation included the design of a database with a web front end to allow online reporting of instances of
academic dishonesty. That project was rejected by the President and Dr. Zink as not FERPA compliant. This
year’s committee asked for and received permission to proceed with the redesign of the Office of Student
Conduct website (sans the online reporting features) with the goal of making current academic integrity policy
and procedure for reporting of violations readily available to faculty and students. This project is now in the
hands of Sally Morgan, the director of the Office of Student Conduct, and Michael Ekedahl, lecturer in
Accounting and Information Systems.
When Michael Ekedahl learned that Digital Initiatives was moving Student Services websites into a
content management system, he withdrew from the project. Sally will work with DI over the summer.
Further Action Needed? Yes, next year’s committee must verify completion of this charge.
2008-2009 Committee Recommendation:
The revision of Undergraduate Academic Standing to:
Eliminate disqualification,
Redefine probation (any undergraduate student who earns less a 2.0 UNR grade point average
will be placed on probation for the following semester),
Define a dismissal policy (undergraduate students who are on probation for three consecutive
semesters will be dismissed from the university for one calendar year).
Action Taken: The committee drafted catalog copy and a form for a Dismissal Appeal process to follow up on
the 2009-10 committee’s revision of the Academic Standing policy. As the university will be dismissing
students for the first time at the end of the Fall 2011 semester, language regarding an appeal policy must be
included in the 2011 catalog. Both the policy and the form were shared on the advising listserv and revised
based on responses received from faculty advisors and the Associate Provost. Current drafts have been
forwarded to the Executive Board for their review.
Further Action Needed? Yes, the language and form must be approved by the Faculty Senate and
administration in time for inclusion in the 2011 General Catalog.
See Appendix 4 for detail on committee recommendations for the past three years. Appendix 5 contains the
proposed catalog language for dismissal and the dismissal appeal form.
Standing Charge 2:
The Board of Regents is considering the adoption of two new policies:
1. Amend Board policy (Title 4, Chapter 16, Sections 16 and 24, and new Sections 39 and 40) to limit the
number of credits for a bachelor’s degree to 120 and 60 credits for an associate degree with exceptions
for licensure or program accreditation.
2. Approve a new Board policy (Title 4, Chapter 14, new Section 5) requiring the biennial review of
academic programs with respect to the number of graduates produced in the prior three years (See
attached Policy Proposal).
Recommendation:
If, as expected, the Board of Regents approves these new policies, next year’s Academic Standards Committee
should be charged with:
A review of the other graduation requirements related to total credits, such as residency (currently 32
upper-division credits) and upper-division credits (currently 40 upper-division credits).
Research the development of the campus-based portion of the process for exceptions to the 120 credit
limit.
Research the development of a campus-based early warning and support system for programs that are
near the degree production thresholds detailed in the BOR’s proposal.
Standing Charge 3:
Action Taken: At the request of the Executive Board, the committee researched the awarding of academic
recognition at peer institutions. The chair met with Tamara Valentine, the Honors Program Director who feels
that Latin titles should be restricted to Honors students. While some of our peers award Latin titles to students
outside their honors programs, those peers also provide their honors students with many more benefits than we
can provide. Dr. Valentine’s information on the resources those peers dedicate to their Honors Program has
been integrated into the committee’s peer research all of which is available in Appendix 6. Also, see Appendix
6 for the University’s current standards for the awarding of Latin titles to Honors students and distinction and
high distinction to students outside the Honors program. Only one member of the committee favored expanding
access to Latin titles to all students without some further review and revision of the current standards. In 2010,
25% of graduates received either a Latin title or distinction.
Recommendation:
Charge next year’s Academic Standards Committee to review and potentially revise our academic recognition
policy.
Further Action Needed? See recommendation above.
Standing Charge 4:
Maureen Cronin served as liaison to the Core Curriculum Board. Nancy Markee was the committee’s liaison to
the Academic Advising Advisory Board.
Additional Charge 1:
Transfer Policy
The policy proposal to the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 13 (see Appendix 1) was
developed by a working group formed from the statewide Transfer Articulation Board.
The committee reviewed the proposal at its October meeting and made the following recommendation for
revision of the system general education requirements contained in the proposal:
Social Sciences or and
Humanities
[3] 9
12[cr.]
[Three] Nine Twelve credits of [an
introductory level] lower division coursework
[course] in either the social sciences or and
humanities to include at least 3 credits in
social science and at least 3 credits in fine
arts.
The proposal was discussed by the Transfer Articulation Board later in October, after it had been reviewed by
the Academic Affairs Council. Nancy and Maureen shared the committee’s concerns with the Board, and they
did make a small revision as a result.
Social Sciences or [3] 9
Humanities/Fine Arts [cr.]
[Three] Nine credits of [an introductory level]
lower division coursework [course] in either
the social sciences or humanities/fine arts.
The entire proposal was approved by the Board of Regents at its December 2010 meeting and will become
effective in the Fall of 2012.
Further Action Needed? No.
Additional Charge 2.
Late Registration
The committee researched late registration policies at peer institutions (see Appendix 2) and developed a
recommendation that was shared with the Senate in December. The recommendation was amended and
approved by the Senate and later the administration and will implemented for the Fall of 2011.
The amended recommendation:
During the fall and spring semesters, students must obtain written permission from their instructors to enroll
after the fifth day of instruction. During summer sessions and Wintermester, written permission must be
obtained after the second day of instruction.
Further Action Needed? No.
Additional Charge 3:
PeopleSoft Implementation/New Academic Policies
As a result of its discussion of the second charge, the committee concluded that some of our current academic
policies may be contributing to last minute applications for admission and/or registration. We discussed our
very liberal stop out and return policies and decided they seem more appropriate for an open admission
institution than a university.
Once admitted and matriculated, a degree-seeking student may stop out after a semester for a semester or a
decade. The student is not required to provide the university with information on the rationale for or planned
duration of breaks in enrollment. Students simply do not register for the next term, and their records are
inactivated at the end of the late registration period for that term. To return, students complete a very short
returning student application that does not require an application fee.
The committee agreed to research how breaks in enrollment are handled at other institutions (See Appendix 3).
We found that most of our peer institutions have a leave of absence policy. The benefits of a leave of absence
for the institution and individual students include:
Institutional Benefits
The policy conveys the institutional
expectation for continuous enrollment.
The institution gets data to better
understand students’ reasons for leaving.
The institution has an opportunity to
intervene before the student leaves.
The institution has the information
necessary to communicate with the student
while they are away.
The institution can activate the students’
records for the term in which the students
plan to return.
The policy gives students realistic
expectations about how long they can be
away.
The institution collects an application fee
from returning students not on approved
leaves of absence.
Individual Student Benefits
Students who cannot meet this expectation
have an incentive to make plans and
communicate them to the institution.
Students are prompted to examine their
reasons for leaving.
Students know the institution cares about
their degree progress.
Students have the opportunity to update the
university on any changes to their plans.
Students can register with their classmates
giving them the best opportunity to get the
classes they need.
The process forces students to commit to a
term in which they will return.
Returning student who must complete a
full application for admission and pay the
application fee are more committed to
returning.
At the request of the Executive Board, the committee looked at returning student data. This data is for Fall
2010.
Counter: student
year
U01
228
Counter: Prior term enrollment
1981 to 1989
Counter
10
Applied
for
RT,but
took no
credits
565
Applied
for RT,
and took
classes
554
U02
261
1990 to 1999
24
U03
242
2000 to 2005
69
U04
390
2006-2007
2008
2009
169
178
430
A few things stand out:



The odds a student will return greatly diminish after one year away.
Seniors are much more likely to return than other undergraduates.
Just under half of the students who submitted returning student applications registered.
These are all things that a leave of absence policy would help us address. And, since the implementation of
PeopleSoft makes the administration of a leave of absence policy possible, the committee developed a
recommendation and shared it with the Executive Board. The recommendation, revised based on Executive
Board input, follows.
Recommendation:
The University of Nevada, Reno strongly encourages degree seeking students to be continuously enrolled. But
if circumstances dictate a break in enrollment, the University’s leave of absence policy assists and encourages
students to return and graduate after an absence of up to two consecutive semesters from UNR. (Summer
sessions are excluded from the continuous enrollment requirement.) Students who participate in the Leave of
Absence program are not required to reapply for admission or pay a reapplication fee and will have the
opportunity to register/enroll with continuing students for the semester in which they intend to return to the
University. Degree-seeking students who leave the university without a degree or an approved leave of
absence must undergo formal readmission to UNR, to include submission of a new application, application fee
and any necessary transcripts.
Eligibility Requirements:
To be eligible for a Leave of Absence, a student must be eligible to register for classes and meet the following
criteria:
1. Be a degree-seeking undergraduate student.
2. Be registered during the semester immediately prior to the beginning of the Leave of Absence.
a. A student who was admitted as a new first semester freshman or transfer student but did not
attend will not be eligible for a Leave of Absence. Instead, he or she should contact
Undergraduate Admissions Office.
b. A student who was readmitted but did not attend will not be eligible for a Leave of Absence.
Instead, he or she should contact the Undergraduate Admissions Office.
c. A student who is participating in a USAC-sponsored study abroad program need not apply for a
Leave of Absence; however, a student who is participating in a non-USAC-sponsored study
abroad program should take advantage of the LOA policy, if eligible.
3. Be in academic good standing, on probation, or on continuing probation with his or her college.
4. Have no hold (e.g., disciplinary, financial, testing, etc.) which would restrict registration. Note: Students
with financial holds may be given consideration for a Leave of Absence if authorized by the Cashier’s
Office.
5. Have submitted any outstanding high school and/or transfer transcripts, if prior admission and continued
enrollment was contingent upon receipt of those transcripts.
Process for Obtaining a Leave of Absence:
Student:
1. Review the policy and complete the Undergraduate Leave of Absence Request form: The policy is
described at http://www.xxxxx , and the form is available at http://xxxxx or at the Office of Admissions
and Records. Return the form to the Office of Admissions and Records, unless requesting an extension
beyond two consecutive semesters of a previously approved leave, in which case the form should be
returned to your college advising office.
2. Consider scheduling an appointment with a college/school representative to discuss the following:
a. Impact on progress toward degree.
b. Catalog year and status after Leave of Absence.
c. Academic good standing issues.
d. Transfer policies, incomplete grades, agency requirements (e.g., state licensing/certification) and
other academic issues, if applicable.
e. If you are considering changing your major, complete the process prior to your LOA.
For more detail on this recommendation, see Appendix 3.
Further Action Needed? Approval by the Senate and the Administration and implementation in the new system.
Additional Charge 4:
A policy which requires undergraduates to declare a major by the time they have completed 60 credits was
initially thought to target and benefit students who have not selected an academic major. By the time they have
reached the 60 credit milestone, most students have completed the bulk of their university Core requirements
and are taking major and minor courses. Graduation will certainly be delayed for students who are not admitted
to a major program within the 60 credit window.
However, when reviewing the number of students who would be impacted, the committee also looked at
students with more than 60 credits who were in a pre-major status. These numbers were frankly shocking.
Program
Pre-Bus
Pre-Educ
Un Engin
Pre-Nurs
Pre-SW
Pre-Jour
Pre-Com
Juniors
288
174
6
114
66
33
12
Seniors
122
101
9
118
34
25
6
Total
410
275
15
232
100
58
18
1108
Recommendation:
Next year’s committee should be charged with an extensive review and revision of our current academic
progress standards.
Appendix 1
BOARD OF REGENTS
BRIEFING PAPER
Handbook Revision, General Education and Transfer
BACKGROUND & POLICY CONTEXT OF ISSUE:
The goal of NSHE transfer associate degrees is for a student who starts at a community college to be
able to complete a bachelor’s degree in the same number of credits as a student who starts at a fouryear institution. In conversations occurring over the past year with the Articulation Board, a group of
faculty charged with reviewing NSHE transfer policies, and the Academic Affairs Council, it became
apparent that the Board requirements for transfer associate degrees create a situation where students
have to take general education courses that result in additional coursework beyond the 2+2 agreements
between the colleges and universities/state college.
Current Board policy outlines specifically the degree requirements for all associate degrees, including
transfer degrees (associate of arts, associate of science, and associate of business) by specifying the
general education credits required and providing generally for the minimum number of additional
program requirements (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 25). Staff, in coordination with the Articulation
Board and Academic Affairs Council, proposes eliminating the specific degree requirements for
transfer associate degrees and making the general education minimum course requirements for the
transferable associate and the bachelor’s degree the same. This does not mean that exact courses will
be the same, only that the minimum requirements within the disciplines will be the same. These new
minimum requirements will not prevent an institution from requiring more general education
requirements, as most institutions do now, and is not anticipated to result in drastic changes in
community college general education programs. Further, it is recommended that transfer agreements
include a year-by-year outline of course requirements, in which the course of study leading to a
baccalaureate degree includes in the first two years coursework that will result in the completion of
requirements for an associate degree. This policy would not go into effect until Fall 2012 to enable
the community colleges, the state college, and the universities to work together to reflect any changes
in the 2+2 agreements.
SPECIFIC ACTIONS BEING RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED:
Amend Board policy to eliminate the specific degree requirements defined for the associate of arts,
associate of science and associate of business and redefining minimum general education requirements
applicable to all transfer and baccalaureate degrees. Further, amend Board policy to require that
transfer agreements include a year-by-year course of study whereby the courses outlined for the first
two years would result in the completion of the requirements for an associate degree. (See attached
Policy Proposal.)
IMPETUS (WHY NOW?):
The proposal is brought forward at this time based on the conversations with and recommendations of
the Articulation Board, a small group of faculty charged with reviewing NSHE transfer policy, and the
Academic Affairs Council in order to improve student success in transferring.
BULLET POINTS TO SUPPORT REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION:
 Minimum general education requirements for transfer and baccalaureate degrees will be the same,
but institutional faculty will have the added flexibility to exceed the minimum;
 Both the 4-year and the 2-year institution will have a voice in establishing 2+2 agreements;
 2+2 agreements will include a year-by-year course of study whereby the first two years must
include the requirements for the completion of an associate degree; and
 System administration through the Articulation Board will track changes and review the impact of
the policy to ensure academic quality and student transfer success are well served by this change.
POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION:
Some university faculty fear that the total credits in an individual community college general
education program may not be high enough or match their general education program sufficiently.
ALTERNATIVE(S) TO WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED/RECOMMENDED:
Maintain the current policy whereby the general education requirements for each transfer degree
exceeds the general education requirements for universities and the state college and create problems
for alignment with the bachelor’s degree at a 4-year institution.
COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD POLICY:
 Consistent With Current Board Policy: Title #_____ Chapter #_____
Section #_______
X Amends Current Board Policy: Title 4, Chapter 14, Sections 13 and 16; and Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 24
 Amends Current Procedures & Guidelines Manual: Chapter #_____ Section #_______
 Other:________________________________________________________________________
X Fiscal Impact:
Yes_____
No__X___
Explain:____________________________________________________________
POLICY PROPOSAL - HANDBOOK
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 13
Transfer Agreements
Additions appear in boldface italics; deletions are [stricken and bracketed]
Section 13.
NSHE Transfer and Admissions
Transfer students to the state college and universities may be admitted under the following alternatives:
1. Associate of Arts, Associate of Science, and Associate of Business Degree Graduates
The primary basis for admission to upper-division study with full junior status of transfer students from an
NSHE community college to any other NSHE institution shall be the associate of arts, associate of science, and
the associate of business degrees.
a. The completion of the associate of arts, associate of science, and associate of business degree at a
community college automatically fulfills the lower-division general education requirements at any other
NSHE institution.
b. Associate of arts, associate of science, and associate of business graduates will have completed a
minimum of 60 credits of baccalaureate level courses.
c.
Baccalaureate students who have completed NSHE associate of arts, associate of science, or associate of business degree
shall complete a minimum number of credits at the accepting NSHE institution. This minimum number shall be set by the
baccalaureate degree granting institution.
d. Baccalaureate level courses included as part of the associate of arts, associate of science, or associate of
business degree will transfer to any other NSHE institution at a minimum as general elective credit.
e. Completion of the associate of arts, associate of science, or the associate of business degree does not
guarantee satisfaction of all state college or university lower-division requirements except for the lowerdivision general education requirements.
f.
All baccalaureate academic majors at a university or college must have current [major-to-major]
transfer agreements with NSHE community colleges. These agreements must provide clear information
for community college students as to those courses that will transfer efficiently to another NSHE
institution within each major. Information on these agreements must be available to all students on each
campus.
g. Transfer agreements shall be developed by both the baccalaureate degree-granting institution and the
associate degree-granting institution. Transfer agreements must include a year-by-year outline of
course requirements, including general education and degree requirements, in which the course of
study leading to a baccalaureate degree includes in the first two years coursework that will result in
completion of the requirements for an associate degree.
h. Transfer agreements shall be updated to reflect any changes made in baccalaureate majors or
associate degree requirements as they occur.
[f]i. The receiving institution will evaluate all university and college parallel courses attempted at the
community college (and any other educational institution attended) and compute an overall admission
grade point average in accordance with the institution’s transfer policies.
[g]j. For associate of arts, associate of science, and associate of business graduates, if the overall transfer
grade point average computed by the receiving institution is less than a 2.0 grade point average, the
student shall be placed on probationary status until such grade point deficiencies are corrected.
2. Other Associate Degrees
Other associate degrees and certificates may be awarded by a community college for programs that have
requirements different from the associate of arts, associate of science, associate of business, or a primary
objective of transfer. A student with an associate degree other than an associate of arts, associate of science, or
associate of business is not guaranteed junior status at a receiving institution.
3. Associate of Applied Science and Bachelor of Applied Science Degrees
The Bachelor of Applied Science degree is a four-year occupationally specific degree that is intended to
respond to the needs of the workforce. A student with an associate of applied science in a program approved by
the Board of Regents seeking a Bachelor of Applied Science degree is guaranteed junior status upon transfer to
another applicable NSHE institution.
4. Non-Associate Degree Admissions
a. Approved baccalaureate level courses shall be transferable to another NSHE institution at a minimum as
general elective credit.
b.
Community college students should be strongly encouraged to complete their lower-division programs and an associate
degree before transfer, but qualified students may apply for transfer at their own discretion.
c. An applicant who does not satisfy university admission requirements upon graduation from high school
must complete the equivalent of 24 semester credits in baccalaureate level courses with an overall grade
point average of at least [2.30] 2.5 at a community college or other accredited institution to qualify for
university admission. [Effective Fall 2008, the minimum required overall grade point average is 2.50.]
d. An applicant who does not satisfy state college admission requirements upon graduation from high
school must complete the equivalent of 12 semester credits in baccalaureate level courses with an
overall grade point average of at least 2.00 at a community college or other accredited institution to
qualify for state college admission.
e.
A course with a “D-” grade or better will be accepted for transfer provided the institution specific overall grade point average
established in subsections c. and d. above is maintained. Transfer courses with a “D-” grade or better will count towards a
bachelor’s degree in the same manner as “D-” grades or better obtained by students enrolled in the lower-division at a state
college or university. Credits from courses transferred with a “D-” grade or better count towards credit earned for a
baccalaureate; however, it is at the discretion of the department or college offering the major as to whether courses with “D-”
grades in the major satisfy requirements in the major field.
EFFECTIVE FALL 2012.
POLICY PROPOSAL - HANDBOOK
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 16
General Education Requirements
Additions appear in boldface italics; deletions are [stricken and bracketed]
Section 16.
System [Core] General Education Requirements
1. Associate of arts, associate of science, associate of business, and baccalaureate graduates must complete a
minimum program of [System Core] general education requirements defined as follows:
[Core] General Education
Courses
English
Credits
[6 cr.]
3-6
Freshman level English Composition
including English 102
[(see catalog for exceptions)]
Mathematics
3 [cr.]
Three credits of [a] lower division
coursework [level course]
Natural Science
[3] 6
[cr.]
[Three] Six credits of [an introductory level]
lower division coursework [course] to
include at least one laboratory experience
Social Sciences or
Humanities/Fine Arts
[3] 9
[cr.]
[Three] Nine credits of [an introductory level]
lower division coursework [course] in either
the social sciences or humanities/fine arts.
[United States and Nevada
Constitutions]
[1-4 cr.]
[Institutional course catalogs shall identify
courses that meet this requirement]
Total
21-24
2. Instruction must be given in the essentials of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
the State of Nevada, including the origin and history of the Constitutions and the study of and devotion to
American institutions and ideals pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes 396.500 for all associate and
baccalaureate degrees. If clearly identified, this content may be included in coursework defined in
subsection 1. Institutional course catalogs must identify courses that meet this requirement.
3.
Courses taken toward the System [Core] general education requirements shall not be applied to more than
one general education requirement defined in subsection 1 [area in the Core]. Credits earned by
examination may apply toward any of [the Core] the general education requirements defined in
subsections 1 and 2.
[3]4. Students earning a second associate of arts, associate of science, associate of business, or baccalaureate
degree from an NSHE institution are not required to repeat the System [Core] requirements for general
education.
Evidence of completion of U.S. and Nevada Constitutions is required of all second-degree students whose
first degree is not from an NSHE institution.
[4]5. NSHE institutions are encouraged to exchange ideas in the development and improvement of specific
courses to meet NSHE requirements, particularly to increase the likelihood of transfer student success;
however, each institution is responsible for determining the character of its own program.
[5. NSHE community colleges must articulate their respective general education core requirements with at least
one of the NSHE universities selected by the community college.]
EFFECTIVE FALL 2012.
POLICY PROPOSAL - HANDBOOK
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 16, SECTION 24
Community College Graduation Requirements
Additions appear in boldface italics; deletions are [stricken and bracketed]
Section 24.
Community College Requirements for Graduation
The following requirements must be met by a student seeking to graduate from an NSHE community college:
[1. Each associate degree student is required to satisfy the United States and Nevada Constitution requirement
and six semester credits of Communications.]
[2]1. Each associate degree or certificate of achievement student is required to satisfy course requirements as
defined in the college catalog.
[3]2. A student may select the catalog year governing requirements for graduation under the following
circumstances:
a.) the year in which the student enrolled; or
b.) the year the student officially selects a program of study; or
c.) the year in which the student will complete the curriculum requirements for an associate degree or certificate of achievement.
If a degree is offered for the first time after a student has enrolled, the student may choose the catalog year
in which the degree or major was first offered. The selected catalog may not be more than six years old at
the time of graduation for students receiving an associate degree or certificate of achievement, and not more
than ten years old at the time of graduation for students receiving a baccalaureate degree.
[4]3.
A student must maintain a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.0.
[5]4.
A student must complete a minimum of 15 semester credit hours within the college.
[6. The required minimum number of semester hours for the associate degree is 60; and for the certificate of
achievement is 30.]
[7]5.
A student must not have a financial or library obligation to the college.
[8]6. A student may earn multiple degrees and certificates of achievement provided all course and graduation
requirements for each degree or certificate are fully satisfied as outlined in the college’s course catalog.
EFFECTIVE FALL 2012.
POLICY PROPOSAL - HANDBOOK
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 16, SECTION 25
Community College Degree Requirements
Additions appear in boldface italics; deletions are [stricken and bracketed]
Section 25.
Community College Certificate and Degree Requirements
[MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS]
The required minimum number of semester hours for an associate of arts, associate of business, and
associate of science is 60. Specific requirements for all other certificates and degrees are as follows:
CERTIFICATE
Communications
Emphasis
Additional Program Requirements
TOTAL
3
24
3
30
NOTE: Computation & Human
Relations must be included as courses
or be clearly identified as content
[imbedded] included in other required
courses.
ASSOCIATE OF APPLIED SCIENCE
Communications
3
English
3
Constitution
3
Human Relations
3
Social Science*[*]
3
Humanities
Mathematics
3
Science
3
[Total General Education
21]
Emphasis
30
Additional Program Requirements
9
TOTAL
60
[*]*When a Social Science course is used
for Human Relations, the student must
take a humanities class.
[ASSOCIATE OF ARTS*
English
Constitution
Science (Lab Req.)
Mathematics
Social Science
Humanities
Fine Arts
Additional Program Requirements
TOTAL
6
3
3
3
9
6
3
27
60
ASSOCIATE OF GENERAL STUDIES
Communications
6
Constitution
3
Science
3
Mathematics
3
Social Science
3
Humanities
3
Additional Program Requirements
39
TOTAL
60
*A minimum 15 credit optional emphasis may include courses used to fulfill the subject requirements outlined
above.
ASSOCIATE OF SCIENCE*
English
Constitution
Mathematics
Science (Lab Req.)
Social Science
Fine Arts/Humanities
Additional Program Requirements
TOTAL
6
3
6
12
6
6
21
60
*A minimum 15 credit optional emphasis may include courses used to fulfill the subject requirements outlined
above.
ASSOCIATE OF BUSINESS
English
Constitution
Fine Arts/Humanities
Mathematics
Science (Lab Req.)
Social Science
Additional Program Requirements
TOTAL
EFFECTIVE FALL 2012.
6
3
9
6
6
6
24
60]
Appendix 2
Late Registration Policies
Following are the registration calendars of 9 of our aspirant peer institutions, beginning with the first day of
class and continuing until the last day to drop individual courses. Some key dates are summarized in the table
below.
Institution
Instruction
Last Day to Day of
Last Day to Reg
Begins
Reg Online Instruction
w/Instructor
Permission
th
Univ. of Arizona Aug. 23, 2010
Aug. 29,
Sunday after 5
Sept. 14, 2010 w/o
2010
day of instruction late registration fee
Arizona State
Aug. 19, 2010
Aug. 25,
5th day of
2010
instruction
Colorado State
Aug. 23, 2010
Aug. 29,
Sunday after 5th
2010
day of instruction
Univ. of
Aug. 23, 2010
Sept. 1,
8th day of
Sept. 10, 2010
Colorado,
2010
instruction
Boulder
UC, Davis
Sept. 23, 2010
Oct. 8, 2010 12th day of
instruction
Iowa State
5th day of
University
instruction
University of
Sept. 27, 2010
Oct. 6, 2010 8th day of
Oregon
instruction
Oregon State
Sept. 27, 2010
Oct. 3, 2010 Sunday after 5th
Oct. 8, 2010
day of instruction
Univ. of
Aug. 23, 2010
Aug. 30,
6th day of
Aug. 30, 2010
Nebraska,
2010
instruction
Lincoln
University of Arizona
August 20, 2010
Fall 2010
August 23, 2010
Fall 2010
Last day to file Undergraduate Leave of Absence
FIRST DAY OF CLASSES


UAccess still available for registration
First day to file Grade Replacement Opportunity (GRO)
August 23, 2010
Fall 2010
Deadline to pay for Fall 2010 without late charge
August 24, 2010
Fall 2010
Begin late payment charge of $50.00
August 29, 2010
Fall 2010
Last day to use UAccess for:


August 30, 2010
Fall 2010
adds, changing classes or sections
changes to or from pass/fail grade
Begin $25.00 course late drop fee for undergraduate students.

There will be a $25 late drop fee assessed for each course dropped beginning today.
For further information please click here.
August 30, 2010
Fall 2010
Change of Schedule form with instructor approval required to ADD or CHANGE classes
UAccess only available to DROP classes
Registration from zero units requires Change of Schedule form with Instructor and Dean's
permission
September 3, 2010 Fall 2010
The last day to receive a REFUND for a complete withdrawal or any drop in units.
September 06,
2010
Labor Day - no classes
September 13,
2010
Last day to increase in units without the $250 Late Registration Fee.
September 14,
2010
Fall 2010
Registration from zero units requires written statement, Registrar, Instructor, and Dean's
approval, and pre-payment
September 14,
2010
Fall 2010
Begin $250.00 Late Registration Charge for additional class units
September 17,
2010
Fall 2010
Last day to:




use UAccess to drop
DROP without a grade; classes dropped on or before this date will remain on your
UAccess academic record with a status of dropped, but will not appear on your
transcript
change from pass/fail to regular grade or vice versa with instructor approval on a
Change of Schedule form
file Grade Replacement Opportunity (GRO)
(Note: The last day to receive a REFUND for a complete withdrawal or any drop in units
was September 3, 2010.)
September 20,
2010
Fall 2010
Change of Schedule form with instructor's permission is required to drop a class. A penalty
grade of W or E will be awarded and the class will appear on your transcript
Change of Schedule form with instructor's and dean's permission is required to change from
pass/fail to regular grade or vice versa
September 22,
2010
Spring 2011
Schedule of Classes available
October 01, 2010
Enrollment appointments available in UAccess for student viewing
October 08, 2010
Honors Convocation - no classes from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm (Family Weekend)
October 11--17,
2010
Spring 2011
Priority registration for athletes and Veterans plus their dependents using GI Bill benefits
October 15, 2010
Fall 2010
Last day to DROP a class with a grade of W (if passing) or change from graded course to
audit (or vice versa); instructor's signature indicating permission on a Change of Schedule
form is required.
October 18, 2010
Fall 2010
ALL REGISTRATION CHANGES REQUIRE not only the instructor's signature indicating
permission on a Change of Schedule form, but also the Dean's signature; by policy,
permission from the Dean to make a registration change at this time requires an extraordinary
reason. Grade of W or E will be awarded for dropped classes.
Arizona State University
August 19,
2010*
First Day of Classes*
August 1925, 2010
Late Registration & Drop/Add Deadline
August 25,
2010
Residency Classification Petition Deadline
August 31,
2010
Tuition/Fee Payment Deadline - for registration from August 9 - 31, 2010
(Students with unpaid tuition charges are automatically enrolled in tuition installment plan on 9/9/10.)
September 1,
2010
Tuition & Fees 100% Refund Deadline
Tuition and certain registration fees are subject to 100% refund through (September 1, 2010) - (applicable to
classes held in sessions longer than eight weeks). Tuition and fees are nonrefundable thereafter and students are
required to pay all tuition and fees for drops and withdrawals occurring on or after September 2, 2010. Certain
registration fees are nonrefundable on or after the first day of the semester. Refer to the Tuition Refund Policy for
additional information.)
September 6,
2010
Labor Day Observed
September 8,
2010
University 21st Day
September 8,
2010
Tuition/Fee Payment Deadline - for registration from September 1 - 8, 2010
(Students with unpaid tuition charges are automatically enrolled in tuition installment plan on 9/9/10.)
September
16-23, 2010
Academic Status Report #1
September
30, 2010
Deadline for Appealing Residency Classification Decision
October 15,
2010
Graduation Filing Deadline
October 2130, 2010
Academic Status Report #2
November 3,
2010
Course Withdrawal Deadline - In Person & Online
Colorado State University
August 22, 2010
Last Day to Cancel Registration (no assessed tuition & fees)
August 23, 2010
$50 Late registration fee for adding first class
August 23, 2010
Classes begin
August 26, 2010
Special B drop period ends
August 29, 2010
Special A add period ends
August 29, 2010
Special B add period ends
September 6, 2010
Labor Day - no classes
September 8, 2010
Special A drop period ends
September 8, 2010
Registration closes/ Census (end of add/drop period)
September 8, 2010
Student Option Pass/Fail and Audit Grading Forms due
September 9, 2010
$50 Late Registration Fee applied for adding any course/credit hour additions on or after this
date
September 17,
2010
Graduation Contract (Undergraduate) due
October 18, 2010
Repeat/Delete Requests due
October 18, 2010
Course withdrawal period ends (Please note that University Withdrawal ends Dec. 10, 2010)
Late Registration
When is a Late Registration Request needed?
There are four instances when a student needs to submit a Late Registration Request to the Registrar’s Office:




When a student needs to add a course or switch sections of the same course past the add deadline for that course.
When a student needs to withdraw from a Special B course past the drop deadline for that course and before the full-term
course withdrawal deadline.
When a student needs to increase credits on a variable credit course after the add/drop deadline.
When a student needs to change a course’s level for the same course after the add/drop deadline (i.e., PSY 295 – Independent
Study to PSY 495 –Independent Study).
When a student wants to drop or withdraw from a course past the drop or withdraw deadline, or when a student wants to
decrease credits on a variable credit course, a Registration Appeal is required instead of a Late Registration Request. The
student should contact the Registrar’s Office for the Appeal form.
Who can complete a Late Registration Request?
The instructor of a course or an authorized staff member in the department through which the course is being offered may complete
and sign a Late Registration Request (obtainable in the department). The student should only complete the Name and CSUID at the
top of the form, as well as the Student Signature line at the bottom of the form.
Will there be additional charges to the student for submitting a Late Registration Request?


A non-appealable $50 late registration fee will be assessed to any student submitting a Late Registration Request (except
when increasing variable credits).
There may be additional charges for adding a course. These charges are listed on the bottom of the Late Registration Request
form where the student must sign.
Is the late registration process the same for all students?
Graduate students wishing to add courses or change credits on a variable credit course after the add deadline for the course must
contact the Graduate School. Undergraduates and Professional students must bring the completed Late Registration Request to the
Registrar’s Office for processing.
Where can I access the Late Registration Form?
Late Registration Forms can be obtained through ARIESweb. To access the form:




Click on the "ARIES A-Z" link under the ARIES Information Links section.
Click on the "L" in the A-Z Index List.
Click on "Late Registration Request" link.
Click on the "Click Here" button next to the LATE REGISTRATION Request.doc file.
Faculty & Staff can also obtain Late Registration Request Forms from their teaching department office, or by emailing the
Registrar's Office at registrarsoffice@colostate.edu.
University of Colorado, Boulder
August 23
(Mon.)
Classes begin.
August 31
Tuesday
Space-available registration for Senior Citizens Auditors Program, Koenig Alumni
Center, 8:00 a.m. to noon. (See Other Types of Registration)
September 1
(Wed.)
Add Deadline: Deadline to add a course, including independent study and thesis,
without the instructor’s signature. After this date, the instructor’s signature is required on a
enrollment form to add a course (through September 10). After this date, registration is
only available for dropping courses through September 8, the drop deadline. (See
Drop/Add)
Wait List Deadline: Deadline to add name to a course wait list. (See Wait Lists)
Tuition & Fees Payment Deadline: Deadline to pay full tuition and fees (or first payment
of the two-payment plan). Due by 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time if paid in person or
mailed, or before midnight using CUBill&Pay. No grace period. See Payments.)
Deadline (before midnight) to sign up for the two-payment plan via CUConnect. No
grace period.
Deadline (5:00 p.m.) to select or waive university sponsored health insurance at
Wardenburg Health Center or by midnight on CUConnect.
Deadline (5:00 p.m.) to turn in Time Off and StayConnected applications to the
registrar’s office and be eligible to purchase university sponsored insurance. (See
Time Off & Stay Connected)
Deadline (5:00 p.m.) for private scholarship checks to be received in the financial aid
Scholarship Office to avoid late and service charges.
September 6
(Mon.)
September 8
(Wed.)
Labor Day holiday. No classes. University closed.
Drop Deadline: Deadline to drop a course without being assessed tuition and fees for that
course and without a W grade appearing on the transcript. NOTE: After this date, the
instructor’s signature is required on an enrollment form (through October 6) to drop a
course. (EXCEPTION: Students whose only college is Arts and Sciences,
Architecture and Planning, as well as non-degree students, have until October 29 to
drop a course without approval signatures.) No refunds for tuition or fees are given for
courses dropped after September 8. (See Drop/Add)
Deadline (5:00 p.m.) to petition to waive UCSU student fees.
Deadline to request a refund of any student opportunities fees you selected. (See
Student Opportunities Fees)
Deadline (5:00 p.m.) to withdraw from the university and only be assessed a $200
withdrawal processing fee. After this date, 100 percent of tuition and fees is due for
students who withdraw unless there are extenuating circumstances. (See Withdrawal)
September 10
(Fri.)
Deadline (5:00 p.m.) to add a course without petitioning your dean. NOTE: Instructors’
signature is required on an enrollment form to add a course. In general, instructors
only approve an add if students have been regularly attending and there’s space in the
course. (See Drop/Add) (NOTE: September 10 is also the deadline for undergraduate
resident students to add a course and be eligible for the COF voucher for that course.
See COF.)
Deadline to change variable-credit hours, pass/fail, and no-credit status on courses
without petitioning your dean. After the deadline, petitions will only be accepted if
there are extenuating circumstances. (See Credit and Grading Options)
After this date, registration is on a space-available basis, and a $100 late fee is
charged. (See Late Registration)
September 22
(Wed.)
Deadline (5:00 p.m.) to withdraw from the university and be eligible to petition to be
assessed 40 percent of full tuition and fees (instead of being assessed 100 percent of
full tuition and fees). (See Withdrawal)
University of California, Davis
Dates pertaining to registration times, student fee deadlines, and important term &
graduation dates are below:
Fall Winter Spring
2010 2011
2011
Application deadline for readmission to undergraduate status
Jul
30
Oct 29 Jan 31
Instruction begins
Sep
23
Jan 3

Deadline for filing Planned Educational Leave Program (PELP) petitions
Registration Fee Deferred Payment Plan (RFDPP) second installment due
10th day of instruction
Last day to



Mar 28
Make final late payment of registration fees with penalty; see here. Students
with unpaid balances after the 10th day of instruction will have their
registration administratively withdrawn, all courses dropped and fees for
the first 10 days of instruction will be charged to the student account; see
here
Drop designated 10–day–drop courses (designated by ^ in the Schedule of
Classes)
File petitions to change from full–time to part–time status
Oct Jan 10 Apr 11
11
Oct Jan 14 Apr 8
6

File applications with the Dean’s Office for A&ES and L&S students who plan
to complete work for minor program
12th day of instruction
Last day


Oct Jan 19 Apr 12
8
For wait lists
To add courses
20th day of instruction
Last day to


Oct Jan 31 Apr 22
20
Drop 20–day–drop courses
File for course materials fee waiver
25th day of instruction
Last day to:


Oct
27
Feb 7
Apr 29
Opt for P/NP or S/U grading
Change units of a variable–unit course
Iowa State University
A late registration fee is assessed for registration initiated on or after the first day of classes for fall and spring terms. This fee is not
charged for the summer term. If registration is not completed by the end of the fifth day of classes, students must obtain written
permission from their advisers, the instructors for the courses they plan to take, as well as approval from the dean of the college in
which they are registered. During the summer session, these approvals must be obtained in order to register after the third day of
classes.
University of Oregon
September 27 (Monday)
October 1 (Friday)
October 3 (Sunday)
October 4 (Monday)
October 6 (Wednesday)
October 8 (Friday)
October 10 (Sunday)
October 17 (Sunday)
October 24 (Sunday)
October 29 (Friday)

Fall classes begin

First tuition installment due (one-third of assessed tuition, plus current and past-due balance)


Last day to: Process a complete drop to receive 90% tuition refund (no "W" recorded)
Last day to: Reduce credits and receive 100% tuition refund (no "W" recorded)

Last day to: Process a complete drop or reduce credits and receive 75% tuition refund (no "W"
recorded; after this date, "W"'s' are recorded for partial and complete withdrawls)


Last day to: Add a class/process initial registration
Last day to: Change from audit to credit or credit to audit

Last day to: Apply for Fall 2010 graduate degrees (apply on the web)

Last day to: Process a complete withdrawal or reduce credits and receive a 75% tuition refund
(mark of "W" is recorded)

Last day to: Process a complete withdrawal or reduce credits and receive a 50% tuition refund
(mark of ‘W’ is recorded)


Last day to: Process a complete withdrawl or reduce credits and receive a 25% tuition refund
(mark of "W" is recorded)
Last day to: Apply for Fall 2010 undergraduate degrees in DuckWeb

Last day to: Submit doctoral final oral defense application to the Graduate School
November 1 (Monday)
November 5 (Friday)
November 14 (Sunday)

Course offerings for Winter 2011 available

Second tuition installment due (one-third of assessed tuition, plus current and past-due balance)

Deadline to apply for winter re-enrollment



Last day to: Drop a class (mark of "W" recorded)
Last day to: Change grade options (Graded or P/N)
Last day to: Change variable credits
Oregon State University
Classes begin
Monday, September 27
Late registration begins
($50 late fee assessed)
Monday, September 27
Last day to add a class by Web without departmental
approval
Sunday, October 3
Tuition bills e-mailed to ONID accounts
October 4, due November 1
Second week adds by Web with departmental approval
Monday–Friday, October 4–8
Audit registration period
(Requires instructor approval; tuition and fees assessed)
Monday–Friday, October 4–8
Friday, October 8
Deadline to Apply for Graduation
(Specify term, e.g. fall)
Last day to drop a class by Web
11:55 p.m., Friday, October 8
Last day to register or add a class by Web
(Requires instructor and departmental approval)
5 p.m., Friday, October 8
Late registration fee increases to $100.
Tuesday, October 12 through December 6
Last day to change to or from S/U grading
(Requires approval of academic advisor/dean, see AR 18)
5 p.m., Friday, November 12
*Last day to withdraw from a course by Web. (W grade
entered on transcript) (Students who want to withdraw
from a course but who have a hold on their record
should contact or go to the Registrar’s Office for
assistance.)
11:55 p.m., Friday, November 12
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Course Adds
The deadline for adding courses for the Fall Semester is midnight, Monday, August 30, 2010. Any adds after this point, including
mini-courses, require the written permission of the instructor and the dean's office or advising center of your college. Such
transactions must be processed in person at Registration and Records, 107 Canfield Administration Building South. Late course adds
are by exception only. There is no guarantee that such exception will be granted. Financial aid recipients who process late course adds
are encouraged to contact the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid as this could impact financial aid awards.
“Override Authorization Forms” must be processed at Registration and Records, 107 Canfield Administration Building South. This
form is used to override maximum credit hours, course credit hours, or grade type.
"Schedule Adjustment Forms ” are also processed at Registration and Records. Written permission or a permission code from the
academic department office or instructor is always required to enter a closed course.
Changing Credits
You are free to change the number of credits on a variable credit course for the Fall Semester through MyRED until midnight,
Monday, August 30, 2010. After that date, the change must be processed in person at Registration and Records, 107 Canfield
Administration Building South and may require special permission from your college.
Course Drops
Drops for the Fall Semester may be processed through midnight, Monday, August 30, 2010 for a full tuition refund. However,
courses dropped August 31- September 3, 2010 will be subject to the 25% tuition charge. Courses dropped in MyRED through
midnight, Friday, September 3, 2010 will be removed from the student's transcript record, but retained for billing purposes.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS: Dropping below full-time status without prior approval of International Affairs can have
serious consequences and may affect your permission to remain in the USA. NOTE: See Tuition and Fees; Charges for Drops or
Withdrawal.
Failure to attend classes does not constitute proper notification of a drop and you will continue to be responsible for the course
or courses on your schedule until you formally drop the class.
A drop becomes effective for tuition and grade purposes on the date the transaction is processed in MyRED, or the “Schedule
Adjustment Form” is processed with Registration and Records.
Students (undergraduate and graduate) may withdraw from individual classes or from all classes for the Fall Semester, regardless of
the circumstances, before the 3/4 point of the term, Friday, November 12, 2010. A grade of "W" will automatically be noted on the
transcript for these courses. Any drops or withdrawals after the 3/4 point of the term are only granted for extraordinary circumstances
by petition. Undergraduate students should contact their college dean's office to obtain the "Petition for Late Withdrawal" form.
Graduate students should contact Graduate Studies, 1100 Seaton Hall, to obtain the petition form.
Deadlines for courses less than a full semester in length (Mini-Session) are prorated. Contact Registration and Records, 107
Canfield Administration Building South, for specific dates for adding, dropping, and the withdrawal ("W") periods for mini-courses.
Note: If a student is found to have been academically dishonest in a course and drops the course, the instructor reserves the right to
add the student's name to the Final Grade Roster and submit a final grade. In this case, the student will be held accountable for the full
tuition for the course.
Withdrawals
Dropping all of the classes you are enrolled in for a term after the term begins constitutes a withdrawal. To withdraw from all courses,
access MyRED (myred.unl.edu), drop all of your classes, or process a “Cancellation/Withdrawal Form” at Registration and Records,
107 Canfield Administration Building South. Law students wishing to withdraw or drop classes should make their requests to their
college dean's office. No withdrawals are permitted after the three-quarter point of the term. NOTE: See Withdrawal from the
University.
If, after the last day to add classes in each term, you decide to drop a course or courses and/or withdraw from the University, it is
recommended that you contact the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid, 17 Canfield Administration Building South, (402) 4722030, before you act to discuss the possible need for repayment of federal aid and your eligibility for subsequent aid in future
semesters.
Only in the case of timely notification (within the term the event occurred or immediately thereafter) of your unexpected
hospitalization, the death of a member of your immediate family living in your household, or a University error, may the effective date
of the drop of a course or withdrawal be adjusted to the occurrence of the event. Proper documentation and explanation in writing will
be required to determine the adjusted effective date.
August 23 (Mon.)
Fall Semester begins
August 30 (Mon.)
Last day for late registrations and adds including adds of thesis or
dissertation credits (Census Date)
August 30 (Mon.)
Last day to drop a full semester course and receive 100% refund
September 3 (Fri.)
Last day to drop a full semester course and receive 75% refund
September 3 (Fri.)
Last day to file a drop to remove course from student's record
September 4 (Sat.) - November 12
All course withdrawals noted with a grade of "W" on academic record
(Fri.)
September 6 (Mon.)
Labor Day (Student and Staff Holiday-UNL offices closed)
September 10 (Fri.)
Last day to withdraw from a full semester course and receive 50%
refund
September 10 (Fri.)
Last day to apply for residence for Fall Semester
September 17 (Fri.)
Last day to withdraw from a full semester course and receive 25%
refund
September 19 (Sun.)
Tuition and fee payment deadline
September 24 (Fri.)
Final day to apply for a degree in December ($25.00 fee due with
application)
October 15 (Fri.)
Last day to change a course registration to or from "Pass/No Pass"
October 18 - 19 (Mon. - Tues.)
Fall Semester Break (Student Holiday - UNL offices open)
October 25 (Mon.) - November 9
Priority Registration for Spring Semester 2011
(Tues.)
November 10 (Wed.) - January 9
Open Registration for Spring Semester 2011
(Sun.) 2011
November 12 (Fri.)
Last day to withdraw from one or more courses for the term
Appendix 3.
Institutional Policy
University of Arizona
Leave of Absence Policies at Peer Institutions
Key Components
Duration: up to 2 semesters
Undergraduate Leave of Absence Policy (Policy updated: August 20,
1999)
The Undergraduate Student Leave of Absence assists and encourages
students to return and graduate after a one or two semester absence from
campus. Students with this status need not apply for or pay readmission
fees, and may register for classes during their priority registration period.
The University grants a Leave of Absence through the student’s College
Dean’s Office, see the current Catalog for College Contacts for Leave of
Absence. Nursing students must follow the procedure for Leave of
Absence in the College’s Baccalaureate Student Handbook. International
students leaving the University should contact the Center for Global
Student Programs (621-4627). For students participating in UAsponsored Study Abroad programs, this Leave of Absence is unnecessary
and, therefore, unavailable . On the other hand, it is appropriate and
available to students participating in NON-UA-sponsored study abroad
programs.
The deadline for a completed application to be received (not mailed) in
the Administration Building, Room 210, from the college dean’s office,
is by 4:00 p.m. on the last regular business day before school starts. Final
decisions regarding approval or disapproval of Leave of Absence
requests will not be available until the posting of grades for the semester
immediately preceding the term for which the leave is requested.
Students should note that the timing of the final decision depends on the
timing of the application. Therefore, students may not receive a decision
on the request for Leave of Absence before the first day of class if their
application is received just before the opening of classes. Incomplete
applications will be sent back to the colleges. If the deadline is missed by
this action, the student will not be eligible for the leave.
To qualify, students must satisfy the following criteria:
a.
b.
c.
d.
be registered during the semester immediately prior to
the beginning of the leave;
have a cumulative GPA of at least 2.0 -- both at the
time of application for leave and following the posting
of grades for the semester immediately preceding the
term of the requested leave of absence;
have their University accounts paid in full, both at the
time of leave application and following the posting of
grades for the semester immediately preceding the term
of the requested leave of absence; and
have no pending disciplinary action.
After processing the application, the Registrar’s Office will mail the
student copy to the student and the college copy to the college.
Students, when they do not return at the end of the approved leave, must
apply for readmission and comply with readmission rules.
While on Leave of Absence, the University:
Deadline to apply: 4 p.m. on the last
day of business before school starts, but
fees assessed based on date of receipt of
application
Return: application for readmission not
required
Criteria:
-Registered in the term preceding the
leave
-2.0 cum GPA at the end of the term
preceding the leave
-Accounts paid in full
-No pending disciplinary action
Privileges Retained: na
a.
b.
reports enrollment status to lenders and loan service
entities as "not attending" (students are advised to
contact their lender(s) for repayment information and
grace period expiration); and
suspends student’s insurance and use of University
facilities.
See the current Catalog for College Contacts for Leave of Absence.
Arizona State University
Leave of Absence (Undergraduate)
No leave appl. required for absences of
two consecutive semesters, Quick Reentry
The Undergraduate Leave of Absence (LOA) policy assists and
encourages undergraduate degree-seeking students to return and graduate
after an absence of more than two semesters from ASU.
Duration: LOA is for leaves longer
than two consecutive semesters, not
longer than 2 years
Note: If you are an undergraduate degree seeking student who previously
attended ASU but have not been enrolled at ASU for one or two
consecutive fall or spring semesters you may be eligible to return to
ASU through the "Quick Re-entry". Students are not required to process
an LOA for absences of one or two consecutive fall or spring semesters.
Deadline to apply:
Eligibility Requirements
To be eligible for an Undergraduate Leave of Absence, students must be
eligible to register for classes and meet the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Be a degree-seeking undergraduate student.
Be registered during the semester immediately prior to the
beginning of the Leave of Absence.

Students who were admitted as new first semester
freshmen or transfer students but did not attend will not be
eligible for a Leave of Absence. Instead, they should contact
the Undergraduate Admissions office.

Students who were readmitted but did not attend will
not be eligible for a Leave of Absence. Instead, they should
contact the Undergraduate Admissions office.

Students who are participating in an ASU-sponsored
study abroad program need not apply for a Leave of Absence;
however, students who are participating in a non-ASUsponsored study abroad program should take advantage of the
LOA policy, if eligible.
Be in academic good standing, on probation, or on continuing
probation with their college.
Have no hold (e.g., disciplinary, financial, testing, etc.) which
would restrict registration. Note: Students with financial holds may
be given consideration for a Leave of Absence if authorized by the
Collections Office.
Have submitted any outstanding high school and/or transfer
transcripts, if prior admission/readmission and continued enrollment
was contingent upon receipt of those transcripts.
Undergraduate students considering taking an absence from ASU should
carefully review the policies and procedures for submitting an
Undergraduate Leave of Absence Request.
Leave of Absence Duration:
A Leave of Absence will be granted for more than two consecutive
regular semesters. (A regular semester is defined as a fall or spring
semester and excludes winter and summer sessions; for example, Leave
Return: application for readmission not
required
Criteria:
-Degree-seeking
-Registered in the term preceding the
leave
-in good standing, P1, or P2 at the end
of the term preceding the leave
-Accounts paid in full
-No pending disciplinary action
-Submit any transcripts due
Privileges Retained: limited library
access, continuing student access to
campus recreation (for a fee)
of Absence is granted for fall and spring or spring through fall.)
If the student does not return at the agreed semester, he or she would
need to undergo formal readmission to ASU, to include submission of a
new application, fee and any necessary transcripts.
1. A student may request a Leave of Absence more than once;
however, the cumulative total of such requests may not exceed
two years.
2. A student may request an extension longer than three
consecutive regular semesters. Approval consideration will be
at the college’s discretion, based on the worthiness of the
request. (For example, appropriate extensions may result from
students leaving for active military duty or religious missions).
3. A student may return earlier than the original agreed return date
but should provide notice as soon as possible, keeping in mind
applicable deadlines, such as advising, registration, financial aid,
etc.
Student Status during the Leave of Absence:
A student granted a Leave of Absence retains his/her admitted student
status. However, he/she is not registered and, therefore, does not have all
the rights and privileges of a registered student and should be aware of
the following consequences:
1. Student Financial Assistance Office – A student is not eligible
for any financial aid disbursements during the semesters while
on LOA. A student on a LOA will be reported to lenders and
loan service agencies as “non-attending” and will need to
contact his/her lenders for information on possible repayment
requirements.
2. Enrollment verification requests – Enrollment verifications for
other entities, such as parents’ health or auto insurance
companies, will also be reported as “non-attending.”
3. Facilities Access:
a. Library – A student on a LOA will have limited access
to library resources. He/she may access library
resources, including use of electronic databases and
journals, while physically present in any campus
library. No remote access to proprietary databases and
electronic resources is available. Normal borrowing
privileges are not retained, but restricted privileges may
be available for a fee; a student interested in checking
out ASU library material should contact any library
circulation services.
b. Campus Health – A student on a LOA for a particular
semester is not registered for any credit hours and,
therefore, not eligible to use Campus Health services.
c. Computing resources – A student on a LOA will not
have access to computing resources, including
computing labs. Students will be able to maintain their
ASU Gmail accounts.
d. Campus recreation – A student on a LOA may
provide documentation and purchase a “continuing
student” membership for access privileges.
Steps for Returning from a Leave of Absence:
1. At the time of return, a student must continue to be eligible to
register (i.e., have no enrollment restrictions, such as an account
delinquency, disciplinary hold, or academic disqualification).
2.
A student returning earlier than the original agreed return date
should provide notice to the University Registrar’s Office
(URO) as soon as possible, keeping in mind applicable
deadlines, such as advising, registration, financial aid, etc.
3.
A student must meet all financial aid requirements and deadlines
for the academic year of his/her return.
4.
The URO will identify concerns, if any, arising during the
student’s Leave of Absence which may make the student
ineligible for registration and work with the college to resolve, if
possible.
Contact Information:
Records & Enrollment Services
University Registrar’s Office
Arizona State University
Student Services Building, Room 140
Monday through Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00PM
480-965-3124
Fax: 480-965-7722
E-mail: registrar@asu.edu
University of Colorado, Boulder
Stay Connected program
Stay Connected (for Undergraduate Students Only) -
Duration: up to four semesters
Beginning fall semester 2010, undergraduate students who withdraw and
then wish to return to the university will have up to four semesters,
including summer, to return to the university without having to reapply
for admission. See information and exclusions under “Readmit Students”
or visit registrar.colorado.edu.
Deadline to apply: sign up and pay $50
fee
Stay Connected students may purchase a package of services to use while
on leave (if eligible). These services include Wardenburg Student Health
Insurance, access to the Recreation Center, early application for
scholarships, etc. Students wanting this package of services must first
sign up for the Stay Connected Program and pay a $50 administrative fee
at the Office of the Registrar. Some of the services available to these
students are only available for an additional fee.
Criteria: have earned Colorado credits
in the past, be in good academic
standing
Withdrawal Procedures Students may officially withdraw from the university by filling out a
withdrawal form in the Office of the Registrar, Regent Administrative
Center 105, by sending a letter of withdrawal to Office of the Registrar,
University of Colorado at Boulder, 20 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0020,
by faxing a letter to 303-492-8748, or by e-mailing
withdraw@colorado.edu from the student’s CU e-mail account.
In all terms, students are not permitted to withdraw after the last day of
classes.
Failure to withdraw will result in a failing grade being recorded for every
course taken in a term and makes a student liable for the full amount of
tuition and fees for that term. For refund stipulations, see the withdrawal
policy regarding tuition and fees, in this catalog.
Rules for withdrawing may vary with each college and school. Students
anticipating a withdrawal should consult with their dean’s office and read
the withdrawal information on the registrar’s website at
registrar.colorado.edu/students/withdraw.html or in the Summer Session
Catalog for specific withdrawal procedures. More information is
available in the Office of the Registrar, Regent Administrative Center
Return: application for readmission not
required
Privileges Retained: purchase a package
of services including: student health
insurance, access to recreation, career
services, and multicultural centers,
early scholarship application, retain
non-work study student employee
status, etc.
105, 303-492-6970, on the Web at registrar.colorado.edu, or by e-mailing
withdraw@colorado.edu.
Withdrawing students (including students applying for the Time Off
Programs) with Federal Perkins/NDSL loans must complete a loan exit
interview before leaving the university. Failure to do so will result in a
“hold” on your record. This hold will prevent you from receiving a
diploma or an academic transcript from the university and from
registering for future terms. In order to complete a loan exit interview,
contact the university Student Loans department in the Bursar’s Office at
303-492-5571, or 1-800-925-9844.
Beginning fall semester 2010, students who withdraw and then wish to
return to the university will have up to four semesters, including summer,
to return to the university without having to reapply for admission. See
information and exclusions under “Readmit Students” or visit
registrar.colorado.edu
University of California, Davis
Leave of Absence: Planned Educational Leave
Program (PELP)
The Planned Educational Leave Program allows any registered studentundergraduate or graduate-to temporarily suspend academic work at UC
Davis. Undergraduates may take one such leave during their academic
career at UC Davis and that leave is limited to one quarter in duration.
For graduate students the maximum leave is up to one year.
Undergraduates apply for PELP at the Office of the University Registrar.
Graduate students apply through theirdepartments and professional
students apply through their Dean’s office.
Applications for PELP may be filed as late as the tenth day of instruction
during the quarter for which the student is requesting a leave. However,
approved applications submitted after the first day of instruction will
entitle you to only a partial retraction of fees assessed, which may
provide a refund in accordance with the Schedule of Refunds. The
Schedule of Refunds refers to calendar days beginning with the first day
of instruction. The effective date for determining a refund of fees is the
date the completed and approved PELP form is returned to the Office of
the University Registrar; see the Fees, Expenses and Financial Aid
chapter.
An application fee of $60 is charged to your account when you enroll in
the PELP program. While students may receive academic credit at other
institutions and transfer this credit to UC Davis (subject to rules
concerning transfer credit), participants are reminded that the intent of the
program is to “suspend academic work.” Therefore, students are urged to
carefully evaluate the desirability of taking academic work while away
from the campus during PELP. Students enrolled in PELP are not eligible
to enroll in Open Campus (concurrent) courses at the UC Davis campus,
or to otherwise earn academic credit at UC Davis during the PELP leave.
Readmission is guaranteed assuming you resume academic work by
enrolling in courses, satisfying any holds that may have been placed on
your registration and paying your registration fees by the established
deadlines for the quarter specified for return on your approved PELP
application. Students who do not return by the specified quarter will be
automatically withdrawn from the university.
You will not be eligible to receive normal university services during the
planned leave. Certain limited services, however, such as placement and
student employment services, counseling, and faculty advising are
available. Students on PELP may purchase a health care card from the
Student Health Service and may retain library privileges by purchasing a
library card. International students should consult Services for
International Students and Scholars to find out how the PELP will affect
Duration: one, one-quarter leave,
students who do not return in agreed
upon term are automatically withdrawn
from the university
Deadline to apply: 10th day of
instruction, fees refunded based on the
registration calendar
Return: guaranteed if you return for
mutually agreed upon term
Criteria:
-complete PELP application and pay
$60 fee
-be in good academic standing
-accounts paid
Privileges Retained: placement and
students employment services,
counseling, faculty advising,
for a fee: student health services, library
privileges.
their status. Grants and other financial aids will be discontinued for the
period of the leave, but effort will be made, where legally possible, to
allow you to renegotiate loan payment schedules and to ensure the
availability of financial aid upon your return.
Related Policy
COURSE LOAD
Expected Progress. Undergraduate students are expected to graduate in
12 quarters (four years). To do so, students should plan to complete an
average of 15 units per quarter (15 units per quarter for 12 quarters totals
180 units). Because occasions arise which prevent students from
achieving expected progress towards the degree, the campus has
established minimum progress requirements, to which students must
adhere.
Minimum Progress Requirements. To meet minimum progress, a fulltime regular undergraduate is required to maintain an average of at least
13 units passed over all quarters of enrollment. Minimum progress is
calculated at the end of every Spring Quarter for the preceding three
quarters (Fall, Winter, Spring) comprising the academic year.
Undergraduate students falling below this requirement
are not in good academic standing and may be disqualified from further
enrollment at the University. Quarters for which a student was officially
approved for part-time status are omitted from the minimum progress
calculation. For more information, see Probation and Dismissal, on page
80.
Certification of Full-Time Status. Undergraduate students must carry a
study load of at least 12 units (including workload units) each quarter in
order to be certified as full-time students for insurance and financial aid
purposes or to compete in intercollegiate athletics. Graduate students
must carry a study load of at least 12 units each quarter in order to be
certified as full-time students.
Iowa State University
Returning/Reentry to the
University
U.S. students who have been absent from Iowa State University less than
12 months may be admitted as a returning student. If more than 12
months have elapsed since last enrolled, a U.S. student must apply for
reentry to the university. All international students must apply for reentry
regardless of the time away from the university.
Returning Students
U.S. undergraduate and non-degree undergraduate students planning to
return to Iowa State University after an absence of less than 12 months do
not complete a reentry form; however, international undergraduate and
non-degree undergraduate students planning to return to Iowa State
University after an absence of less than 12 months must complete a
reentry form. Returning U.S. students and graduate students should
contact the Office of the Registrar to have their records updated and
registration access created. Students should contact their advisers or
major professor to select courses and begin the registration process.
Returning students who want to change their curricula should follow the
same procedure as in-school students. Students who were dropped from
enrollment at Iowa State University must obtain reinstatement by the
Academic Standards Committee of the college that initiated the drop.
(See below for policies that apply to requests for reinstatement.)
Reentry Students
Undergraduate and non-degree undergraduate (special) students who plan
to attend Iowa State University after an absence of twelve months or
more must complete a reentry form. Forms are available from
www.iastate.edu/~registrar/info/reentry.html.
Students with a bachelor’s degree who plan to take supporting graduate
level coursework prior to applying for graduate degree admission should
Duration: less than 12 months
Deadline to apply: no notice required
for leaves of less than 12 months
Return: contact the Registrar’s office to
return; application for readmission not
required
Criteria:
-U.S. undergraduate
-In good standing
-Accounts paid in full
-No pending disciplinary action
-Submit any transcripts due
Privileges Retained: na
request a non-degree graduate admission application.
Students who have previously attended Iowa State University only as
non-degree (special) students and who now seek to earn an undergraduate
degree should request an undergraduate application.
International students must complete a reentry form. Forms are available
from www.iastate.edu/~registrar/info/reentry.html. Financial certification
of ability to cover all educational and living expenses will be required.
The reentry form should be completed and returned to the Office of the
Registrar, 0460 Beardshear Hall, well in advance of the term of reentry.
Students who have attended another college or university since
enrollment at Iowa State University must have an official transcript(s) of
all course work attempted sent to the Office of Admissions, 100
Enrollment Services Center. Reentering students must also contact their
departmental office/adviser to prepare a class schedule. Reentry must be
approved prior to registration. Iowa State University requests the
information on the reentry form for the purpose of making a reentry
decision. The university reserves the right not to approve reentry if the
student fails to provide the required information.
Reentry Approval Process
Generally, a request to reenter Iowa State University will be approved
within the Office of the Registrar. However, the Office of the Registrar
will refer the reentry form to the college to which a student plans to
return if the student: (a) desires to change curriculum; (b) has a previous
Iowa State University cumulative grade point average below 2.00; (c)
was dropped from the university for unsatisfactory academic progress or
was not otherwise in good standing; or (d) since leaving Iowa State
University, has completed additional college study with less than a 2.00
grade point average.
See Index, Reinstatement.
University of Oregon
Reenrollment
Admitted undergraduate students planning to register
any time during an academic year after an absence of four or more terms
must notify the Office of the Registrar by filing a reenrollment form,
available on the registrar’s website.
Reenrollment procedures for graduate students are described in the
Graduate School section of this catalog.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Former Students. Former UNL students who have not been in
attendance for three or more consecutive semesters (the summer sessions
count as one semester) must apply for readmission in order to be eligible
to register for classes. They can do this by completing a Returning UNL
Student Application for Admission and providing official transcripts from
any other colleges or universities they have attended since their last
enrollment at UNL.
Readmission to the University of Nebraska– Lincoln is not automatic for
students who have been academically dismissed or failed to clear all
admission deficiencies. Before seeking readmission to the University,
these students must clear all admission deficiencies. Once all admission
deficiencies are cleared, students who were not academically dismissed
may immediately apply for readmission. Students who have been
academically dismissed, may only apply for readmission after they have
removed all admission deficiencies and the mandatory period of two
consecutive semesters of non-enrollment has been met. (Summer
Sessions, collectively, count as one semester.) Following this period of
Duration: 2 consecutive semesters
(summer counts as one semester)
Deadline to apply: no notice required
for leaves of two semesters
Return: contact the Registrar’s office to
return; application for readmission not
required. New catalog year may be
assigned upon readmission.
Criteria:
-In good standing
-No pending disciplinary action
-Submit any transcripts due
Privileges Retained: catalog year
non-enrollment, students must complete a Returning UNL Student
Application for Admission, a Readmission Questionnaire and present an
official transcript showing removal of admission deficiencies. The forms
are available at the Office of Admissions. Application materials,
including transcripts from institutions attended since being dismissed,
must be submitted by the admission deadlines. For more information
about readmission to the University, see “Academic Standards” on page
14.
College of Business Administration
Readmitted Students
Students readmitted to the College of Business Administration who
previously left the College in good standing (including a minimum 2.5
cumulative GPA) may return to the College. Students will, however, be
required to follow current requirement guidelines of the College.
Instructions to request an appeal of this policy are available in the
Dean’s Office for Undergraduate Programs. Students who left the
College with a cumulative GPA below 2.5 may not return to the College
until they have achieved a minimum 2.5 cumulative GPA at UNL. At that
time, they may transfer back to the College, but must meet the
requirements of the College enforced at the time of their new entrance to
the College of Business Administration. No waivers to follow old
curriculum requirements are permitted for students who leave the College
with less than a 2.5 cumulative GPA.
Appendix 4:
2009-2010 Committee Recommendations
Relating to catalog language regarding statute of limitations on
courses
Recommendation: Based on the analysis of policies from peer
institutions and the issues raised by the “Non-Traditional No More”
program, we recommend that the following language be included in the
UNR General Catalog:
In areas of study in which the subject matter changes
rapidly, material in courses taken long before
graduation may become obsolete. Courses which are
more than ten years old are applicable toward
completion of specific major or minor requirements at
the discretion of the student's major or minor
department. Departments may approve, disapprove, or
request that the students revalidate the substance of
such courses. Students whose major or minor programs
include courses that will be more than 10 years old at
the expected time of graduation should consult with
their major or minor department at the earliest possible
time to determine acceptability of such courses.
Courses older than 10 years will apply to general
elective requirements. Departments may adopt a more
restrictive policy where accreditation and/or licensure
requirements limit the applicability of courses to less
than 10 years.
Adopted, and implemented in the 2010
catalog.
Rationale: The language above provides students with fair warning that
coursework older than 10 years may be subject to review by their
department and, where necessary, allows departments to establish higher
standards. We recommend that department chairs be made aware of this
language and that program curriculum committees be encouraged to
establish clear guidelines for their individual degree programs.
Relating to the Final Exam Schedule
[Pending consideration of student input, adopt the new final exam
schedule.] The schedule presented in Appendix 4 (see below) as the
“Recommended Final Week Class Schedule” be modified to an
8:00am start time daily, bumping all times by ½ hour. [ and
presented to students and faculty for additional discussion, if needed,
to be implemented.] We realize that this new schedule will have an
impact on administrative practices and that some faculty and
students may object to extending the exam period, since the current
schedule helps most students and faculty complete exams early
within exam week.
Adopted, and implemented for the fall
of 2011.
Rationale: The committee believes that overall learning and performance
may be enhanced by modifying the schedule for final exams and suggest a
schedule that provides better balance among classes and attempts to keep
final exams on the same day as the scheduled class. With this schedule
there would be more final exams closer to the grade due date, but the
grade due date would change so that grades would be due on the
following Monday. The exams for classes with the largest enrollment
were at the top of the schedule and exams were spread more evenly.
Regarding Residency Requirements
The committee and senate recommend that there should be a residency
requirement for both major and minor degree programs.
Approved by the Faculty Senate;
awaiting approval of the President and
Provost.
Departments/programs should have the flexibility to establish residency
requirements that are most applicable for specific degree programs,
however, while we prefer that individual programs establish their own
guidelines, we recommend the following general policies to help drive
those guidelines:
Approved for implementation for Fall
2011.
1. Students must complete at least 15 upper division credits in
residence and in the major to earn an undergraduate major
from UNR.
2. Students must complete at least 6 upper division credits in
residence and in the minor to earn an undergraduate minor
from UNR.
Rationale: The current residency requirement could result in a student
earning a major or minor from UNR without taking any classes from
UNR faculty in the major or minor area.
*The proposed recommendation does not replace the current requirement
of 32 upper division credits in residence, instead, the recommendation
further specifies what students must take with respect to individual major
and minor programs.
Regarding the Grade Appeal Process
Recommendation and Rationale: The new proposed process, described in
Appendix 5, (see below) relies on a single combined department and
college-level appeal committee, eliminating the possibility of using two
separate appeal committees. By eliminating the second appeal
committee, and tightening the required response times between steps in
the process, we were able to shorten the maximum time for a grade
appeal to about 12 weeks.
The new proposed process also requires a meeting between department
chair and student, optionally including the faculty member as preferred
by the participants in the process. We anticipate that grade appeals may
be resolved more quickly if department chairs participate early and fully
in the process. We also hope that full participation will help department
chairs to identify potential misunderstandings that might contribute to
grade appeals and then guide faculty in the development of grade
assessment methods.
Approved by the Faculty Senate;
awaiting approval of the President and
Provost.
Approved for implementation for Fall
2011.
Regarding Academic Dishonesty
In order to standardize UNR terminology, we propose that the term
Academic Integrity encompass all issues related to academic misconduct
such as plagiarism and cheating. We propose that “Section IV: Academic
Standards” pp. 72-73 of the 2010-11 UNR General Catalogue be entitled
“Academic Integrity” instead of “Academic Standards.”
UNR should have a single webpage regarding Academic Integrity (AI)
hosted by the Faculty Senate. Any unit who wants to address academic
integrity should link to this single webpage. The website should contain:
a. A brief Code of Ethics for students;
b. A copy of pp. 72-73 from the 2010-11 UNR General
Catalogue “Section IV: “Academic [Standards] Integrity”;
c. A copy of the NSHE Board of Regents Code: Title 2,
Chapter 6;
d. A link to the Office of Student Conduct “Academic
Standards for Students” (this part also contains NSHE
policy)
e. The ASUN student “Honor Code”;
f. A link to examples of academic integrity issues (plagiarism)
from other University websites e.g., Purdue, Northwestern,
etc.;
g. Student and faculty responsibilities to prevent and reduce
academic dishonesty on campus; and
h. Sample language for use in course syllabuses concerning
academic integrity.
Work with New Student Initiatives to distribute ASUN “Honor Code” to
entering students as part of New Student Orientation. We propose that all
entering students sign a statement that they have read and agreed to
uphold the “Honor Code.” This proposal may prove to be cost
prohibitive because there may be no way to enforce or store the signed
statements. Even digital signatures could prove problematic. If this
recommendation is cost prohibitive, then we recommend that that Honor
Code be distributed with no signatures required.
Develop an on-line WebCampus module on AI. The module should
reference the AI website and be used as an interactive learning
assignment. We recommend that this module on AI be completed by all
undergraduates and graduate students during their first sem ester at the
University. Work with the Knowledge Center and Instructional
Technology to develop this module. The Committee discussed
implementation with Instructional Technology staff and they believed
that it would be relatively little cost to implement this type of module.
They also indicated a willingness to take on this task for the university.
Make faculty aware of the AI website and its contents, academic policy
procedures, and sanctions, i.e., reporting. Suggestions to increase
awareness include discussion at New Faculty Orientation; an annual
email reminder from the Provost; and a “zero-tolerance” campaign
initiated by ASUN. This topic should also be a required component of
graduate assistant and adjunct/LOA faculty training/orientation.
Standardize and simplify the current reporting system. Develop a
streamlined, web-based system for reporting AI violations. We
recommend using a one-page alleged AI violation form that contains a
brief discussion of the violation and information on the sanction.
We recommend that all instances including warnings of alleged AI
violations be reported on this form.
The alleged AI violation form is submitted to the Office of Student
Conduct, the Chair of the alleged violating student, the accusing faculty,
and the student (and other units if necessary). Several example forms are
available to choose from various university websites. We suggest
adopting a simple-to-use version for UNR using input about form design
provided from faculty and students.
Recommend that faculty use “Safe-Assign” WebCampus tool for writing
assignments in courses taught at UNR. “Safe-Assign” is available free-
There was some confusion on this one.
The Senate and President initially
approved the proposal.
But after Michelle Hritz, Sally Morgan,
Michael Ekedahl and Dana Edberg met,
Michelle made some inquiries with I/T
regarding the web and database
design. Those inquiries, which raised
FERPA concerns, led the President to
withdraw his support from the project.
The 2010-11committee asked to have
the project revived with the limited
objective of revising the Student
Conduct Office’s website to make it
easier for students and faculty to locate
the policies and forms to report
incidents of academic dishonesty. With
the Executive Board’s approval the
project was revived. Mike Ekedahl
contacted Sally Morgan who promised
to provide content for the site. Sally
has not yet done so.
The project is now on hold pending
the implementation of a content
management system for Student
Services websites.
of-charge for courses taught at UNR
Rationale/Funding: Dana has offered to use an IS class to develop a
comprehensive single web site and database to collect data about
incidences. The maintenance would fall to IT. Sally Morgan was not
being eliminated out of the process; the recommendation would allow
faculty a choice of whether or not to report Academic Integrity to Sally
Morgan. There was really no way to force faculty to report Academic
Dishonesty so the requirement was not effective. Some faulty prefer not
to report because the burden of proof is on the faculty member, not the
students. There was a concern that as the university grew that Sally
Morgan’s Office would not be able to keep up with the larger number of
students. There would be a link and the database would be housed on
Sally Morgan’s website.
Regarding Interdisciplinary Program Administration
Further and more sustained study should occur if the Provost believes it
should occur. A campus-wide ad-hoc committee, rather than the
Academic Standards Committee, might be better able to address the
issues raised by this study as well as other pertinent issues.
No action to date.
VPR is reviewing interdisciplinary
grad. Program operations;
recommendations are forthcoming.
Rationale: The committee did not have a recommendation as they felt
that this is not an academic standards issue. There is information on the
provost website that should be followed for comprehensive
administrative guidelines. The report represents a preliminary
investigation of a complex topic. Not sure this is a faculty issue, or if it
should be a senate issue, because it is not a faculty rights or governance
issue.
Committee recommendation: The dual degree policy requiring 32
additional credits should be changed so that no additional credits be
required for the completion of a dual degree beyond the course
requirements of each degree.
2008-2009 Committee Recommendations
DROP/WITHDRAWAL POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The withdrawal date should be extended to the end of the 9th week of
the semester or, in the case of sessions of shorter length (wintermester;
summer session) at a point 60% into the term. This will provide more
time for faculty to provide meaningful feedback regarding grades to
students and, in some instances, provide students with an opportunity to
alter their study strategies in a class and see if such changes result in
improved academic performance. Currently, students are allowed to
withdraw from individual classes up until the end of the 8th week of the
semester. This recommendation is consistent with UNLV’s drop date
policy.
2. Devise a series of pop-up messages on ePAWS that are initiated when
a student attempts to withdraw from a course. The messages would
inform the student of possible ramifications if they withdraw from a
course (i.e., loss of financial aid and/or scholarships; loss of full-time
student status; progress towards degree, etc.) and urge students to consult
with an academic advisor prior to withdrawing from individual courses.
The committee realizes this may not be feasible with our current
registration system, but recommends its implementation as soon as
possible.
GRADE REPLACEMENT POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations for changes in the current policy are
supported both by the majority of responses received from advisors and
the committee:
1. Extend the number of semesters a student has to repeat a course and
use the grade replacement option from “the next regular semester in
which the course is offered and the student is enrolled” to “within the
next two regular semesters in which the student is enrolled. If the course
is not offered within the next two regular semesters, the must take the
course the next time it is offered.” Students should still be encouraged to
repeat a required class as soon as possible, but this would provide more
flexibility in planning and not require students to adjust their next
semester schedule if they have already enrolled in classes and/or a class
they need to repeat is full.
2. Change the current restriction on the repeat policy to “a maximum of
four lower-division courses not to exceed15 credits.” The current policy
states that “students may repeat a maximum of 12 lower-division credits
to replace original UNR grades.” This will assist students who wish to
replace the grade in one or more 4 or 5 credit courses.
Adopted, and implemented in the 2010
catalog.
Adopted, and implemented in the 2009
catalog.
Adopted, and implemented in the 2009
catalog.
The purpose of the grade replacement policy is to give students the
opportunity to improve their academic performance in one or more
courses in which they have done poorly. The committee discussed in
length the idea of restricting grade replacement to include only courses in
which a student has received a grade of C- or lower.
We concluded, however, that students may differ in their
definitions/perceptions of poor academic performance
and that all students should be given the same chance to improve their
GPA’s through the use of the grade replacement policy.
PROBATION, DISQUALIFICATION, SUSPENSION AND
DISMISSAL POLICIES
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The committee’s recommendations still result in three level/actions, but
terminology and actions taken differ from current policy.
1. Academic Warning: GPA cut offs would continue to be based on the
number of credits earned at UNR:
i. 0-29 credits – when cumulative UNR GPA is 1.6 or above but below
2.0
ii. 30-59 credits – when UNR GPA is 1.8 or above but below 2.0
iii. 60 or more credits – when UNR GPA is 1.9 or above but below 2.0
iv. Action:
a) Allowed to remain in major
b) Receives letter from college and e-mail from Admissions and Records
c) Registration hold on student’s record; mandatory advising prior to next
semester’s registration
d) Still allowed to use ePAWS for registration transactions
2. Academic Probation (University): Student falls below the above GPA
thresholds which continue to be based on the number of credits earned at
UNR.
i. 0-29 credits – cumulative UNR GPA is below 1.6
ii. 30-59 credits – cumulative UNR GPA is below 1.8
iii. 60 or more credits – cumulative UNR GPA is below 1.9
iv. Action:
a) Removed from major; can stay in college or switch to undecided
b) Receives letter from college and e-mail from Admissions and Records
c) Registration hold on student’s record; mandatory advising
d) Student limited to 12 credits/semester with approval of advisor; access
to ePAWS denied; must register in person with advisor signed
advisement sheet. With the implementation of the new registration
system it is hoped that electronic registration could be “authorized” thus
eliminating the need for registration to be done in person but still
allowing advisors to maintain control with respect to the student’s
enrollment. Until such point in time, it is suggested that a standardized
form be developed and used by all advisors to authorize enrollment in
approved courses.
1. Student will be subject to dismissal if still on academic probation after
attempting 24 additional UNR credits
2. A school or college may still place a student on program probation
whenever satisfactory progress toward degree objectives is not
maintained.
3. Dismissal: Occurs if the student, after attempting 24 additional UNR
credits beyond being placed on probation, a student is still on academic
probation.
i. Action:
a. Receives letter from college and e-mail from Admissions and Records.
b. Student will be immediately withdrawn from any classes for which the
student has registered; any tuition paid will be refunded.
c. Student cannot attend as a non-degree student and is not eligible to
attend summer session or enroll in courses through extended
studies/independent learning.
d. Student is required to remain out for at least two academic years.
e. Students seeking readmission must receive approval from the dean of
Adopted with changes, and
implemented in the 2009 catalog. The
2010-11 committee proposed catalog
language and a form for a dismissal
appeal process. The university will
dismiss students for the first time at the
end of the Fall 2011 semester.
ACADEMIC PROBATION
Undergraduate students are placed on
academic probation when a student's
cumulative University of Nevada GPA
is below 2.0.
Students who are placed on Academic
Probation will receive a letter notifying
them of their academic
status. Admissions and Records will
place a registration/advisement hold on
each probationary student's record.
Release from University Probation:
Undergraduate students are removed
from Probation when their University
of Nevada cumulative GPA rises above
2.0.
the college the student wishes to enter prior to readmission.
f. Students should be prepared to provide as part of the readmission
process, documentation that demonstrates improved academic
performance or a readiness for academic success.
g. Students who are reinstated will be on academic probation. The college
into which the student is readmitted may develop a prescribed program of
study to which the student must adhere.
h. If a student is dismissed a second time, subsequent readmission will be
allowed only with the approval of the Special Admissions Committee
GRADE APPEAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE
The current grade appeals policy is reasonable, but it has been clarified.
A table has been developed to assist students, faculty and grade appeal
committee members (see Appendix 1). The revised policy has slightly
different time frame.
B. Clarify that the grade appeal policy should not be used when the grade
appeal results from academic dishonesty.
C. New policy is as follows:
A course grade assigned by an instructor is only subject to the appeals
procedure if:
• The instructor based this student’s grade on factors other than the
student’s performance in the course and/or completion of course
requirements, or
• The instructor based this student’s grade on a more demanding standard
than was applied to other students in the same section of the course.
The burden of proof that one of these two conditions holds rests on the
student, but a grade appeal committee may request information from the
instructor. If a student wishes to appeal a grade received
as a sanction for an instance of academic dishonesty, the student must
follow the Academic Dishonesty procedure.
There are four steps in the appeal process:
1. Consultation with instructor before filing Grade Appeal Form
2. Filing a Grade Appeal Form with Department Chair,
3. Review by a Departmental Grade Appeal Committee,
4. Review by a College Grade Appeal Board.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Previous recommendations that have already been implemented
1. Faculty workshops to help discourage dishonesty should be available
on a voluntary basis. This is now available from the Office of Student
Conduct.
2. Standard language regarding the UNR Academic Dishonesty policy
should be made available for inclusion on course syllabi. The Courses
and Curriculum website provides several examples of Academic
Dishonesty statements for syllabi.
3. Change grade replacement policy such that poor grades due to
Academic Dishonesty cannot be replaced through Grade Replacement
procedures. Implemented.
B. Previous Recommendations, already approved by the Faculty Senate
in May 2006, that we are carrying forward and recommending for
immediate implementation.
1. Faculty and student web sites on ADH issues, resources, and online
tutorial defining plagiarism.
Additional resources and assistance should be provided to the Office of
Student Conduct (OSC) to improve its online content and format, to
provide more information (including links to other websites)
that is in a form more accessible to students. By way of example, the
UNLV website provides a useful model regarding a user-friendly outline
of that institution’s academic dishonesty administrative procedures. The
Online Writing Center at Purdue University provides an example of an
excellent online tutorial defining plagiarism.
2. Students should be made aware of University policies on ADH &
available resources at New Student
Rejected by the administration—this
recommendation was modified the
following year.
Rejected, revised and resubmitted the
following year.
Orientation. An existing Ethics Workshop should be mandatory for
students as part of New Student Orientation.
3. Modules on plagiarism, academic dishonesty and proper citation
should be developed for core classes.
We recommend that such modules be developed by Office of Student
Conduct but taught by regular core class instructors.
4. Faculty should be made aware of the policy requirement to report all
cases of ADH to the Office of Student Conduct. This issue should be
emphasized during New Faculty Orientation, and an annual email
reminder sent to Chairs and Deans to remind their instructors (including
LOA’s) of this requirement. This requirement should also be emphasized
in the mandatory course that Graduate Teaching Assistants are required
to take.
5. Development of a streamlined, web-based reporting system for
instructors to report ADH to Office of Student Conduct. We recommend
that the OSC provides an easy-to-use form or template letter for faculty
to alert report ADH, including cases where faculty members wish to deal
with the matter informally. An example of such a form can be found on
the UNLV website,
http://studentlife.unlv.edu/judicial/misconductPolicy.html.
6. A student’s home department, major and college should be informed of
incidents of ADH. This can be tied to use of the web-based form,
described above.
7. Development of sanctioning guidelines for faculty to refer to when
deciding how to address ADH in their courses. Such recommendations
for faculty should be provided as part of a revised OSC website. The
OSC should be tasked with coming up with such recommendations in
consultation with the Academic Standards committee. It should be
emphasized that these are only guidelines, and that such academic
sanctions will remain a matter of faculty discretion.
8. The University Code of Conduct and Policies (section IV, Academic
Standards) should in separate sections lay out explicitly the nature of
possible academic and administrative sanctions, and distinguish these
two types of sanctions clearly. This is implemented in our recommended
textual changes to the Code of Conduct (see attached).
9. The time frame for reporting ADH should be extended to 15 working
days. This is implemented in our recommended textual changes to the
Code of Conduct (see attached). We have also changed the policy
language from “…10 days from the alleged action” to “…15 working
days from when the incident was identified or discovered.”
10. An Honor Code should be drafted for the University. Such an honor
code was drafted and agreed to on April 11, 2007 by the ASUN
(document RC-0607-9). We recommend implementation of the honor
code that has already been drafted.
C. Previous recommendations, approved by the Faculty Senate in May
2006, for which we recommend modification or reconsideration
1. UNR should purchase a license to Turnitin.com (anti-plagiarism
software). The committee recommends evaluation of two alternatives:
Turnitin.com and the SafeAssign program that is already included within
WebCT. We further recommend that a future committee evaluate the
question in greater detail by polling a group of potential users (e.g.
instructors of core English classes) as to whether use of Turnitin.com
would be a desirable, cost-effective solution.
2. Instructors should have the right to request additional sanctions
beyond an F in the course, such as the right to refuse re-admission to the
course section. The committee overwhelmingly voted against this
recommendation, feeling it was too unforgiving and could create a
situation where students might be locked out of taking courses that are
necessary for their major requirements.
3. Adoption of the Q grade for cases of ADH, to appear on the transcript
until a non-credit course on ADH is successfully completed. Although the
Q grade is not feasible without BOR approval, it would be possible to
implement a transcript notation of “academic dishonesty” within the
current system. UNLV currently implements such a policy
(http://studentlife.unlv.edu/judicial/misconductPolicy.html pp. 1213). The committee recommends an identical policy at UNR, see the
UNLV policy below with minor modifications.
A. In instances where it is determined that the academic misconduct is of
both an intentional and egregious nature, the conduct sanction shall be
recorded on the student’s official and unofficial transcript with a
transcript notation. The transcript of the student shall be marked
“Disciplinary Notation due to Academic Dishonesty in (class) during
(semester).” The transcript notation shall occur only upon completion of
the student conduct proceedings. The conduct sanction notation shall not
affect the grade point average, course repeatability or determination of
academic standing. This conduct sanction notation is intended to denote
a failure to accept and exhibit the fundamental value of academic
honesty.
B. Once a conduct sanction notation is made, the student may file a
written petition to the Academic Integrity Appeal Board to have the
notation removed. The decision to remove the conduct sanction
notation shall rest in the discretion and judgment of a majority of a
quorum of the Board; provided that:
1. At the time the petition is received, at least 180 calendar days shall
have elapsed since the conduct sanction notation was recorded; and,
2. At the time the petition is received, the student shall have successfully
completed the designated noncredit Academic Integrity Seminar, as
administered by the Office of Student Conduct; or, for the person
no longer enrolled at the University, an equivalent activity as determined
by the Office of Student Conduct; and,
3. The Office of Student Conduct certifies that to the best of its knowledge
the student has not been found responsible for any other act of academic
misconduct or similar disciplinary offense at the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas Reno or another institution.
C. Prior to deciding a petition, the Academic Integrity Appeal Board will
review the record of the case and consult with the Office of Student
Conduct and responsible instructor or appropriate chair / director
/ supervisor. The decision of the Appeal Board shall not be subject to
subsequent Appeal Board reconsideration for at least 180 calendar days,
unless the Appeal Board specifies an earlier date on which the petition
may be reconsidered. Subsequent Appeal Board determinations
pertaining to the removal of the conduct sanction notation may be
appealed to the Vice President for Student LifeProvost. If the Vice
President Provost removes the conduct sanction notation from the
student’s transcript, the Vice PresidentProvost shall provide a written
rationale to the Appeal Board.
D. No student with a student conduct notation on the student’s transcript
shall be permitted to represent the University in any extracurricular
activity, or run for or hold an executive office in any student organization
which is allowed to use University facilities, or which receives University
funds.
Note that appropriate implementation of the transcript notation measure
would require a course in place, presumably offered by the Office of
Student Conduct (OSC), allowing students the opportunity to have the
transcript notation removed.
REDUCE THE TIME TO COMPLETION OF DEGREES
1. Do not recommend increasing the number of credits of a course as a
way to increase completion rates.
i. There are 99 four-credit undergraduate courses offered; 11 five-credit
courses, and 16 variable credit courses in which students can earn more
than 3 credits.
ii. Courses with greater than 3 credits are often difficult to fit into a full
schedule. In addition, creating new courses is a time consuming process.
2. Encouraging more courses in the summer semester
120 minimum adopted by the BOR.
A number of UNR programs have
reduced their credit requirements
accordingly.
i. Having more summer semester and wintermester courses would be
advantages to students. Certain types of courses can be successful in an
accelerated format. A long-term goal would be for summer to be
supported by the state and seen as a third semester.
3. Reduce the Board of Regents (BOR) minimum credit hours
requirement from 124 to 120 credits. The committee respects the right of
individual programs to determine appropriate credit requirements for
their degrees.
The BOR Handbook establishes a minimum of 124 semester credits.
Most UNR degrees require at least 128 credits (See Appendix 3). Table 1
is a summary of the information in Appendix 3.
Table 1: UNR Total Degree Credits
Total Credits Number of Degrees
124 2
126 2
128 81
129 4
130 1
131 3
133 2
138 1
While 124 credits is the minimum at UNR, few programs are at the
minimum. In multiple casual conversations, people indicated that they
thought the minimum was 128.
ii. We compared UNR graduation requirements to those of our peers.
Most of our peers have a minimum total credits requirement of 120
semester credits for undergraduate degrees. (see Table 2)
iii. The University Courses and Curricula Committee discussed a draft of
the proposal on February 2nd. The following concerns were expressed:
a. The timing of the change, in the midst of a grave budget crisis, might
give the public the impression that the University was relaxing its
academic standards to save money.
b. Though the Academic Standards Committee Chair assured the group
that changes to total credits requirements would be made only at the
request of departments/programs, UCCC members were leery of pressure
from above to reduce total credit requirements.
Table 2: Total Credit Comparison
Institution Minimum Number of Credits
University of Nevada, Reno 124
University of Arizona 120
Arizona State 120
University of California, Davis 180 quarter credits = 120 semester
University of Colorado, Boulder 120 credits
Colorado State University 120
Iowa State University 122
University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Arts & Science 125
University of Oregon 180 quarter credits = 120 semester
Oregon State University 180 quarter credits = 120 semester
University of Utah 122
Utah State University 120
Washington State University 120
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJORS AND MINORS
RECOMMENDATION:
The basic residency requirement for UNR is that 32 upper division
credits must be earned at UNR. The committee recommends that at least
1/3rd of those credits must apply to the degree. It is recommended that
the same 1/3rd requirement be applied to minors as well. Therefore 1/3rd
of all minor requirements must be earned at
UNR.
FUTURE ACTIONS ITEMS FOR THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS
COMMITTEE
A. The 2008-2009 committee recommends that next year’s committee
Rejected and resubmitted the following
year.
investigate the need to have a “statute of limitations” on courses. For
example, can upper division courses from 20-years ago be applied to a
degree today?
B. It is important that a follow-up and assessment mechanism be put
in place for recommendations. The first objective would be to verify
implementation of the recommendations that are approved. The
second objective would be to determine if a recommendation
accomplished its purpose. A good example of this would be the
recommendations for academic warning/probation/dismissal. It
would be good to evaluate the effectiveness in several years.
2007-2008 Committee Recommendations
Pertaining to Charge 1: Review existing policies at UNR that relate to
fostering a “culture of completion” (including disqualification policy,
drop policy and grade replacement policy) with a view to reducing
student attrition rates and reducing the mean time required for students to
obtain a degree. Develop a midterm progress reporting tool. Review
similar policies at peer institutions. Develop recommendations for
change if necessary.
1. The existing catalog language regarding the policy for dropping a
course should be changed to state that students who wish to withdraw
from individual classes must obtain their instructor’s signature on a form
stating that they have discussed their intention to withdraw with the
instructor.
2. The existing catalog language regarding the grade replacement
policy should be changed as follows:
2a. Students may repeat a course anytime before graduation,
instead of only during the next semester a course is offered.
2b. Students may not repeat a course for which a grade of C or
better is earned (except where specific degree programs require higher
grades).
2c. Repeating a course withdrawn from does not count as a
grade replacement attempt.
2d. The number of allowable grade replacement attempts
should be increased to 4 courses.
2e. Only one grade replacement attempt should be allowed per
course, although more are permissible with approval from the Dean/Chair
and academic advisor. Repeating a course more than once requires a plan
for improvement, drafted and signed by both student and advisor, which
may include tutoring and other forms of academic support.
3. Regarding probation, disqualification, suspension and dismissal,
the committee recommends as follows:
3a. Students under academic warning and probation should
avail themselves of progressively more advisement and assistance as a
condition of continued enrollment. This should take the form of a written
agreement specifying the assistance the student will obtain (e.g., help
with study skills, tutoring in specific subjects). The contract would be
developed and signed by the student and his/her academic advisor, then
signed by the student’s department chair and the dean. UNR Admissions
and Records would receive a copy of the contract. Course registration
would be blocked until approval of the contract.
3b. Students not raising their GPA above the threshold for
disqualification after two semesters should be suspended from UNR and
not readmitted until they can present a record of 15 semester credits of
transferable credit at a community college or other accredited institution,
with a minimum GPA of 2.5.
4. Regarding midterm progress reporting, the committee
None of this committee’s
recommendations were adopted. Many
of the charges were reformulated for
the next year’s committee.
recommended that faculty teaching lower-division courses be strongly
encouraged to use the midterm grade reporting functionality in CAIS, or
some other means, to report grades of C-, D and F to students prior to the
drop date. A general e-mail should be sent to alert faculty to the
existence of this tool.
Pertaining to Charge 2: Start a faculty-wide conversation about
ensuring that faculty follow ethical rules on academic integrity. Develop
a faculty honor code.
5. The Nevada Faculty Alliance should be involved in future discussions
with the Faculty Senate about the formulation of a code of ethical
conduct for faculty at UNR.
6. The “faculty-wide discussion” should not begin with a campus-wide
survey of all faculty, but be conducted within the Colleges. As a first
step towards this, the matter should be brought before the Academic
Leadership Council.
Pertaining to Charge 3: Review the recommendations of the 2006-2007
Academic Standards Committee concerning student academic dishonesty.
Determine which of those recommendations have been implemented and
which have not. Develop an implementation plan for the
recommendations that have not been implemented.
7. Regarding methods of addressing academic dishonesty by students
(reporting and sanctions):
7a. The OSC web site should put online the standard format of
the letter to be sent to students, or several different sample letters; and
should include a link for faculty which would include all the information
faculty need to report, verify, and learn about penalties for academic
dishonesty.
7b. The curriculum of the voluntary course in ethical decisionmaking for students currently being offered through the Office of Student
Conduct (see pp. 31-32 below) should be evaluated by the committee.
The committee should work with Sally Morgan, bearing in mind our
specific curricular recommendations of several years ago, to design a
course that fits both her and our needs.
7c. The committee should propose specific language to be
added to the conduct code related to retaking of courses. The Graduate
School should be made aware of and take steps to implement our
committee’s earlier recommendations regarding the Q course and
implement this policy as soon as the grade has been approved for use.
The committee should discuss whether, with these changes, the current
policy is adequate. If there are other issues not addressed by the current
policy or by our other recommendations, the committee should identify
them and make specific recommendations for Graduate Council
consideration.
7d. A mechanism should be developed for noting on the
student’s transcript actions taken regarding academic dishonesty that does
not involve a specific course (e.g., research projects, TA work, etc.). The
permanence of this notation should be treated in the same way as the Q
grade for in-class dishonesty. The Graduate Council should look into this
issue and make sure that a consistent policy is in place.
7e. The Office of Student Conduct should put in place a
mechanism for notifying the home department of students involved in
incidents of academic dishonesty.
7f. Sally Morgan should be asked to follow up with the Provost
to ensure that changes recommended by the committee in the past
(regarding the development of sanctioning guidelines to guide faculty in
the academic sanction area) are in fact implemented into the Code.
8. Regarding ways of discouraging academic dishonesty among
students:
8a. The committee should discuss the importance of having the
Provost’s or President’s office address publicly the issue of academic
dishonesty, and of establishing how the administration will promote the
importance of the issue.
8b. As regards the modality of conducting faculty workshops,
face-to-face workshops should be scheduled regularly and online options
be made available.
8c. As regards faculty and student websites on academic
dishonesty issues and resources, UNR’s webpage should be revised to
include links to other web pages (as indicated in Appendix A, p. 35
below).
9. Regarding policy clarity and future directions:
9a. Based on the help and facilities available to Sally Morgan, a
definite timetable should be set up to ensure the implementation of the
committee’s earlier recommendation that the University Code of Conduct
and Policies should, in separate sections, lay out explicitly the nature of
possible academic and administrative sanctions, and distinguish these two
types of sanctions clearly.
9b. Policy language should include the instruction that the
committee should revisit the policy three years after it was enacted to
determine how well or ill it has functioned.
Appendix 5
CATALOG LANGUAGE FOR APPEAL OF DISMISSAL
Students who are on Probation for three consecutive regular semesters and fail to raise their cumulative University of Nevada GPA
above the Academic Probation threshold will be dismissed from the University.
Students will receive an email notifying them to access updated information on their academic status at MyNEVADA. Once
dismissed, the student is not allowed UNR enrollment for a period of one calendar year.
Release from University Dismissal: An undergraduate student who has been dismissed may return to the University only on the basis
of evidence that underlying conditions have materially improved and that he or she is now capable of academic success. Dismissed
students seeking readmission must receive approval from the dean of the college they wish to enter prior to readmission. Students
returning from dismissal must raise their cumulative GPA to at least 2.0 within two regular semesters, or they will again be dismissed.
Appeal of Dismissal: Ten business days after students are notified that they have been dismissed, their registration for the next
regular semester will be cancelled. Students will receive an email notifying them to access updated information on their academic
status at MyNEVADA. Students who could be in good standing at the end of one additional semester may appeal to be reinstated by
submitting the “Appeal Undergraduate Dismissal” form available at the Office of Admissions and Records. Students must submit
their appeal to the Office of Admissions and Records within 10 business days of notification of dismissal to hold their registration
pending the outcome of their appeal. The appropriate college must return a decision on appeal by the last business day prior to the
beginning of the next regular term. Appeals will be processed only if it is mathematically possible to reach good-standing at the end
of one additional semester. Late registration fees will be assessed according to the regular registration calendar.
Office of Admissions and Records
Appeal Undergraduate Dismissal
Students who could be in good standing at the end of one additional semester may appeal. Students must submit their appeal to the
Office of Admissions and Records on this form within 10 business days of notification of dismissal to hold their registration pending
the outcome of their appeal. The appropriate college must return a decision on appeal by the last business day prior to the beginning
of the next regular term. Appeals will be processed only if it is mathematically possible to reach good-standing at the end of one
additional semester. Late registration fees will be assessed according to the regular registration calendar.
I request to be reinstated:
Name:
NSHE ID:
Signature:
Date:
Current UNR grade point average:
Total credits earned at the UNR:
Planned enrollment for the next term: (Courses included here must satisfy specific Core, Major, or Minor requirements.)
Subject
Number
Title
Credits
Anticipated Grade
Describe in detail the extenuating circumstances justifying this appeal. Attach additional page(s) and/or documentation if necessary:
Approved:
Denied:
Advisor’s Name and Signature:
Date:
Dean’s Name and Signature:
Date:
The Dean’s Office must return this form to the Office of Admissions and Records for implementation of the appeal decision no later than the last
business day prior to the term for which the appeal is being processed.
Appendix 6: Academic Recognition
Latin Titles at Graduation
Institution
Latin
Titles
Restricted to Non-Latin
Honors
Academic
Program
Recognition
Honors Resources
University of
Nevada, Reno
Yes
Yes
University of
Arizona
Yes
No
Arizona State
Yes
No
Colorado State
Yes
No
University of
Colorado,
Boulder
Yes
Yes
With Distinction for
students outside the
honors program
UC, Davis
No
Yes
Highest Honors, High
Honors, Honors f
Iowa State
University
Yes
No
University of
Oregon
Yes
No
Oregon State
Yes
No
Honors Program; 500 Honors students; 2.5 staff; located in Jot Travis;
Honors advising; Honors classes, Honors sections and Honors
contracts; two-semester thesis; seminar room, Office of Nationally
Competitive Scholarships, two partial Honors floors in Res Life;
library privileges; priority class registration; faculty lecture series; Phi
Kappa Phi
Honors College; 4,000 Honors students; 18 staff; located in Slonaker
House; Honors curriculum within Honors and through College and as
contracts; two semester thesis; academic advising, computer lab,
seminar room, Office of Nationally Competitive Scholarships,
meeting space, Honors Civic Engagement Teams, wireless network;
two Honors Residence Halls; scholarships and grants for 1st year and
transfer students and faculty; Honors General Education; Honors
Professors; library privileges; priority class registration; forum
luncheons, Honors players; Phi Beta Kappa
Barrett, The Honors College (and complex); four locations; 3500+
students; great website; Honors courses and enrichment contracts:
over 100 seminars each semester; senior thesis; philosophy, politics
and law certificate; partnership with Law School; Honors
opportunities in the majors; research funding; internship program;
scholarships and fellowships; study abroad programs; writing center;
Honors-specific organizations; student publications, art displays; 38
Honors staff; 26 Honors faculty; 100s of faculty honors advisors; and
much more
University Honors Program; 1,140 students; Academic Village:
Honors office, faculty offices, seminar rooms, fireside lounge; Two
halls of Honors Residential Learning Communities; 5 staff and 6
student assts; early registration; Honors scholarships for all students;
Honors enrichment awards; two tracks of Honors curricula, Honors
thesis
Honors Program; Honors Residential Academic Program;
Engineering Honors Program; 6 Honors faculty; Honors curriculum
(15 enrollees max); thesis; Honors Journal; lecture series, cultural
events, social outings, co-curricular activities; (not a well-developed
website)
University Honors Program (UHP); Davis Honors Challenge;
Integrated Studies Honors Program; Chemical Engineering and
Biochemical Engineering Honors Program; living learning
community; Service Learning Program; National Fellowships office;
Phi Beta Kappa; Honors curriculum; research seminars; library
privileges, career and software workshops; Honors advising; five
staff; annual banquet, socials, etc.; (not a well-developed website)
University Honors Program; Jischke Honors Building; computer
facilities; lunch with a professor; First Year Honors Program; priority
scheduling; Honors curriculum; Honors seminars (15 enrollees max);
Wingspread Conference fellows; Honors sponsored events; Honors
Housing; capstone project; Honors poster presentations; Honors
Leadership Opportunities; National Fellowships; Honors Awards for
Excellence; Honors Commendations; 15 staff
Robt D Clark Honors College; 700 students; located in Chapman
Hall, computer lab, Robt D Clark Library, printing privileges, lounge
with kitchen; Honors core curriculum; thesis; thesis awards; 17+
Honors faculty; 14 staff; colloquia; various Honors scholarships;
speakers, author readings, student conferences, and performances; Phi
Beta Kappa; Honors Creative Arts Journal
University Honors College; degree granting college; Honors
Baccalaureate degree; 500 students; Academic advising from UHC
advisors; Priority living in McNary Hall (the Honors themed
Residence Hall) or The GEM (an off-campus apartment complex;
High Distinction, High
Distinction for students
outside the honors
program
Univ. of
Nebraska,
Lincoln
No
No
High Scholarship,
Superior Scholarship,
Chancellor’s Scholars for
all students who meet the
criteria
Two Student Learning Centers; study lounges; conference room,
seminar room, classroom, faculty offices; computer lab with free
printing; free candy; trips; and events; Leadership involvement;
thesis; Honors curriculum (12-20 enrollees max); Honors students
awards; Honors financial and merit scholarships; academic advising;
11 staff; 45 Honors College faculty
University Honors Program; Neihardt Residence Center (4 Honors
halls); 7 staff; advising; textbook scholarships; National fellowships;
Phi Beta Kappa; thesis library; computer lab; learning community;
Honors curriculum, seminars, and contracts; thesis; Honors
overnights, colloquia, undergraduate assts;
University of Nevada, Reno
Academic Recognition
Distinction at Graduation: Students who graduate with a GPA of at least 3.75 receive the bachelor's degree with high distinction, or
with distinction if the GPA is between 3.50 and 3.74, provided these additional requirements are satisfied:
At least ninety-six (96) semester credits are earned in courses graded "A" through "F."
At least sixty-four (64) semester credits are earned in residence at the university in courses graded "A" through "F."
Transfer students must satisfy the GPA requirement at the university and have a combined, transfer-university GPA of at least 3.75
for high distinction, or 3.50 to 3.74 for distinction.
Distinction is recognized at graduation ceremonies when the student has fulfilled all the requirements in the most recent prior
semester.
Honors at Graduation: The requirements to graduate in the honors program are:
Cum laude, magna cum laude or summa cum laude is awarded to a graduating bachelor's degree student who completes the honors
program (having completed 30 honors credits or points) and all university, college and major requirements with the specified GPA
(both in the major program and overall), based upon at least 96 credits in courses graded "A" through "F":
cum laude: GPA of 3.50 to 3.69 with a completed thesis;
magna cum laude: GPA of 3.70 to 3.89 with grade of "A" on senior honor thesis;
summa cum laude: GPA of at least 3.9 with grade of "A" on senior honors thesis.
At least 64 semester credits must be earned in residence at the university in courses graded "A" through "F." Each transfer student
must satisfy the university requirements and have a combined transfer-university GPA that satisfies the minimum, specified total.
Cum laude, magna cum laude and summa cum laude are recognized at graduation ceremonies when the student has fulfilled all the
requirements in the most recent prior semester.
Students completing the thirty (30) Honors credits with a GPA of at least 3.25 but less than 3.5 shall have a "Completed Honors
Program" designation. Those with 30 Honors credits but less than a 3.25 GPA or those with fewer than thirty (30) credits shall have an
"Honors Program Participant" designation.
For additional information, refer to the "Honors Program'' description in the Interdisciplinary and Special Programs section of this
catalog.
University of Arizona
Graduation with Academic Distinction
Three categories are awarded for superior scholarship in work leading to the bachelor's degree. This honor, based upon graduation
grade-point-average, becomes part of the official record, is awarded upon graduation and appears on the transcript and diploma of the
recipient.
Summa Cum Laude -- is awarded to candidates whose grade-point-average is 3.900 or higher.
Magna Cum Laude -- is awarded to candidates whose grade-point-average is 3.700-3.899.
Cum Laude -- is awarded to candidates whose grade-point-average is 3.5000-3.699.
To be eligible for distinction at graduation, bachelor's degree candidates must have completed at least 45 graded units with letter
grades that carry the required grade-point-average. Also, in computing the above grade-point-averages, only University Credit is
considered. This policy applies to all students graduating in December 1998 or later.
Graduation with Honors
Graduation with Honors is bestowed on students who have completed all requirements of the University-wide Honors Program. This
academic recognition becomes part of the official record and is noted on the transcript and diploma of the recipient. Honors students
also wear a special cord and medallion at graduation.
Arizona State University
graduation with academic recognition
An undergraduate student must have completed at least 56 credit hours of resident credit at ASU to qualify for graduation with
academic recognition for a baccalaureate degree. Note: West campus students following a catalog year prior to fall 2007 are required
to have completed at least 50 credit hours of resident credit at ASU.
The cumulative GPA determines the designation, as shown in the Academic Recognition table below.
academic recognition
Cumulative GPA
Designation
3.40–3.59
cum laude
3.60–3.79
magna cum laude
3.80–4.00
summa cum laude
The cumulative GPA for these designations is based on only ASU resident course work. For example, ASU independent learning
course grades are not calculated in the honors GPA. All designations of graduation with academic recognition are indicated on the
diploma and the ASU transcript. Graduation with academic recognition applies only to undergraduate degrees.
A student who has a baccalaureate degree from ASU and is pursuing a second baccalaureate degree at ASU (with a minimum of 30
hours of resident credit) is granted academic recognition on the second degree based on the credit hours earned subsequent to the
posting of the first degree. If fewer than 56 credit hours are completed at ASU subsequent to completion of the first ASU degree, the
level of academic recognition can be no higher than that obtained on the first degree. If 56 or more credit hours are completed at ASU
after completion of the first ASU degree, the level of academic recognition is based on the GPA earned for the second ASU degree.
Inquiries about graduation with academic recognition may be directed to the Graduation Section, 480-965-3256.
Colorado State University
GRADUATION WITH DISTINCTION
Colorado State recognizes outstanding scholarship by granting the baccalaureate degree “Cum Laude,” “Magna Cum Laude,” and
“Summa Cum Laude” to those students in each college who have achieved unusually high academic excellence in their undergraduate
programs. To be eligible for graduation with distinction, students must meet the following requirements:
Minimum grade point average required for graduation with distinction.
To qualify for graduation with distinction, a minimum of 60 credits completed at Colorado State University is required. Students who
have been granted Fresh Start must have completed 60 credits after the Fresh Start designation to qualify for graduation with
distinction.
Transfer credits are not considered when determining a) candidacy for graduation with distinction or b) graduation with distinction.
The Current Breakdown of Acceptable GPA’s for a Distinction Designation:
Summa Magna
College
Cum Laude
Cum Laude
Cum Laude
Agricultural Sciences
3.980
3.850
3.710
Applied Human Sci.
3.960
3.840
3.660
Business
3.960
3.850
3.720
Engineering
3.960
3.910
3.700
Liberal Arts
3.960
3.870
3.700
Natural Resources
3.980
3.850
3.740
Natural Sciences
3.980
3.900
3.760
Veterinary Medicine &
3.990
3.950
3.890
Biomedical Sciences
These minimum cumulative grade point averages will be reviewed every four years and may be changed if needed to maintain
appropriate academic standards. Such changes will become effective the semester following approval by Faculty Council and
publication in the General Catalog. Each of the minimum grade point averages needed to graduate with distinction will be adjusted at
the end of each four year period only if the percentage of students graduating with distinction in a distinction category and college
have shown a statistically verifiable deviation from the target percentages of:
Summa Cum Laude
1%
Magna Cum Laude
3%
Cum Laude
6%
Candidates for graduation with distinction are recognized at the time of commencement. A student’s candidacy is determined by their
cumulative grade point average through the semester preceding graduation. “Candidacy” for graduation with distinction does not
guarantee graduation with distinction. Graduation with distinction is based on the student’s cumulative grade point average at the time
of graduation.
Students seeking a second bachelor’s degree are eligible for distinction designation. To qualify for graduation with distinction, a
minimum of 60 credits completed at Colorado State is required after the first degree. In determining the grade point average of the
student, only grades earned after the first degree are considered.
GRADUATION AS A UNIVERSITY AND/OR DISCIPLINE HONORS SCHOLAR
Students who complete the University Honors Program academic requirements and achieve at least a cumulative 3.5 grade point
average earn the designation of University Honors Scholar and/or Discipline Honors Scholar. Scholars are recognized at graduation by
the Honors Program and during the colleges’ commencement ceremonies. The Honors Scholar designation appears on diplomas and
transcripts.
For information about admission to the University Honors Program, visit or contact the Honors Program Office, Academic Village,
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1025; (970) 491-5679 or visit on-line at www.honors.colostate.edu. Also see the chapter: Broadening Your
Horizons.
University of Colorado
GRADUATION WITH DISTINCTION OR HONORS
Outstanding accomplishment by undergraduates at UCB is recognized in two ways: Graduation with Distinction and Graduation with
Honors.
Graduation with Distinction is based solely on academic performance and is automatically conferred on all students graduating with a
grade point average (GPA) of 3.75 or better, both at UCB and in all collegiate work completed.
Graduation with Honors requires a GPA of at least 3.3 plus active participation in an Honors program. Two types of Honors programs
are available, General Honors and Departmental Honors.
The General Honors Program is operated solely by the Honors Department and emphasizes a broad liberal arts education rather than
specialization. Candidates for General Honors must participate in at least four Honors Department courses and must take a series of
written and oral examinations as specified by the Honors Department. Students who wish to participate should contact the Honors
Department.
The Departmental Honors Program is organized around a student research project undertaken in an individual department. It is not
necessary to take Honors Department courses to qualify. Candidates for Departmental Honors must satisfy GPA requirements,
complete a research project, prepare an Honors thesis describing the research project in a scholarly fashion and pass an oral
examination as described below. MCDB Honors information is available at the Student Affairs Office MCDB A1B48 or download
from MCDB Departmental Honors Program. Deadlines and applications are also available from the Student Affairs Office A1B48 or
www.colorado.edu/honors/graduation.
Frequently Asked Questions from the UCB Honors Program Page
http://www.colorado.edu/honors/faq.html
10. What are the GPA requirements for graduating Cum Laude, Magna cum Laude, and Summa cum Laude?
All students should understand that grades do not singularly determine the levels of honors you are awarded. There are, however,
guidelines as follows:
Students with a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.3 are qualified to be considered for Honors, Cum Laude (with honors)
Students with a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.5 are qualified to be considered for Honors, Magna cum Laude (with high honors)
Students with a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.8 are qualified to be considered for Honors, Summa cum Laude (highest honors)
While the above guidelines qualify you for consideration for a given level of honors, the level you earn is based on the quality of your
thesis and thesis defense. Grades do not solely determine your level of honors. If warranted by the quality of the theses and thesis
defense, a committee may recommend you for an honors designation one level higher than the guidelines suggest.
13. Can I graduate with Honors without doing a thesis?
No, you can't graduate with Honors without a thesis. However, you may be able to graduate with Distinction, which is based on GPA.
Check with the College of Arts and Sciences for more details.
14. How are designations decided?
There are several different steps to deciding the level of Honors (if any) a candidate will receive. The first step, of course, is
maintaining a good GPA (generally 3.3 or better). The second step is writing a quality Honors thesis and doing an oral defense of your
thesis. While you may turn in a final copy of your thesis, with corrections, to the Honors Program office after you defend, the copy of
the thesis that the committee sees on your defense day is the copy on which they will base their recommendation.
After you have done your oral defense, your committee makes its recommendation to the Honors Council. The Honors Council then
considers each candidate individually (strongly considering the recommendation of the defense committee, although they may grant a
different designation). The Honors Council, which is made up of representatives from each department that participates in the Honors
Program (in other words, all departments in the College of Arts and Sciences, plus the School of Engineering and the School of
Business). Also see question 10.
University of California, Davis
Graduation Honors
Honors at graduation are awarded to students who have a grade point average in the top percent of their college as shown in the table
below. The College of Letters and Science requires that additional criteria be met for high and highest honors; see the sections below
for more information.
Total Quarter
Units Completed at UC
Highest Honors High Honors
Honors
Total
45-89
2%
next 2% next 4% 8%
90-134
3%
next 3% next 6% 12%
135+
4%
next 4% next 8% 16%
Grade point averages from the winter quarter prior to graduation are used to determine the averages that will earn an honors
designation. Following are the averages for winter quarter 2010. These averages will be used through winter quarter 2011.
An honors notation is made on students’ diplomas and on their permanent records in the Office of the University Registrar.
Grade Point Average by College
Percent
Determining
Cut-Off Point
Agricultural & Biological
Engineering
Letters and
Environmental Sciences
Sciences
Sciences
2%
3.902
3.948
3.923
3.894
3%
3.869
3.925
3.887
3.850
4%
3.822
3.900
3.854
3.814
6%
3.769
3.833
3.770
3.750
8%
3.694
3.773
3.700
3.705
12%
3.595
3.668
3.594
3.620
16%
3.517
3.588
3.494
3.540
College of Letters and Science: Graduation with “honors” requires that a student meet the appropriate grade point requirement
described in the above table for all UC courses completed.
Students who meet the grade point requirement for graduation with honors, and who complete the Honors Program of the College of
Letters and Science, may be recommended by their departments for graduation with high honors or highest honors on the basis of an
evaluation of their academic achievements in the major and in the honors project in particular. Graduating students will not be
awarded honors with the bachelor's degree if more than eight units of grade I (Incomplete) appear on their transcripts. The College
Committee on Honors may consider exceptions to this condition. Petitions for this purpose should be submitted to the deans' office.
The Honors Program of the College of Letters and Science
The Honors Program in the College of Letters and Science permits students to pursue a program of study in their major at a level
significantly beyond that defined by the normal curriculum. It represents an opportunity for the qualified student to experience aspects
of the major that are representative of advanced study in the field. Successful completion of the College Honors Program is a
necessary prerequisite to consideration for the awarding of high or highest honors at graduation.
Entrance into the honors program requires that a student have completed at least 135 units with a minimum grade point average of
3.500 in courses counted toward the major. Other prerequisites for entrance into the program are defined by the major. The program
consists of a project whose specific nature is determined by consultation with the student’s major adviser. It may involve completion
of a research project, a scholarly paper, a senior thesis, or some comparable assignment depending on the major. The project will have
a minimum duration of two quarters and will be noted on the student’s record by a variable unit course number or special honors
course designation. Successful completion of the honors program requires that a minimum of six units of credit be earned in course
work for the project.
Iowa State University
Graduation with Distinction. Undergraduates who have a cumulative grade point average of 3.50 or higher at the beginning of their
final term are eligible to graduate “with distinction” provided they have completed 60 semester credits of coursework at Iowa State
University at the time they graduate, including a minimum of 50 graded credits. Students who graduate with a cumulative grade point
average of 3.90 or higher will graduate Summa Cum Laude; those who graduate with a cumulative grade point average of 3.70 to 3.89
will graduate Magna Cum Laude; and those who graduate with a cumulative grade point average of 3.50 to 3.69 will graduate Cum
Laude. This recognition appears on the student’s official transcript and diploma and in the commencement program.
Candidates for the bachelor of liberal studies degree may be graduated with distinction providing that they (a) have completed 45
semester credits of coursework at the three Iowa Regent universities at the time of graduation, (b) have earned at least a 3.50
cumulative grade point average at ISU, and (c) their combined grade point average for coursework taken at the three Iowa Regent
universities meets the honors cutoff specified above.
University of Oregon
Latin Honors
Graduating seniors who have earned at least 90 credits in residence at the University of Oregon and have successfully completed all
other university degree requirements are eligible for graduation with Latin honors. These distinctions are based on students’ percentile
rankings in their respective graduating classes, as follows:
Top 10 percent cum laude
Top 5 percent magna cum laude
Top 2 percent summa cum laude
Post-baccalaureate students are not eligible for Latin honors. The Office of the Registrar computes Latin honors upon graduation.
Oregon State University
Degrees With Distinction
Grade point averages are computed on the basis of all work attempted at OSU. Graduates who have been in attendance at OSU for at
least two years are awarded degrees with distinction as follows:
Academic Distinction
OSU GPA Range
Cum Laude
Magna Cum Laude
Summa Cum Laude
These distinctions are noted on diplomas.
3.50–3.69
3.70–3.84
3.85–4.00
Graduation
Honor Cord Color
Orange
Gold
White
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Honors Convocation Recognition Requirements
Honors Convocation recognition requirements for students entering the University after the Spring Semester 2004 require that
those eligible for recognition be in the top ten percent of their college class based on their cumulative grade point average (but with a
cumulative GPA no lower than 3.6) and meet the additional requirements stated below.
Students whose first college matriculation at UNL (after high school graduation) occurred before June 2004 will be recognized on
the basis of recognition requirements in force at that time. This policy will also apply to transfer students from UNO and UNK whose
first college matriculation at those institutions preceded the June 2004 implementation of the recognition criteria.
Honors Convocation criteria for students entering the University in the 2004-05 academic year and after are listed below. Students
will be recognized only for the highest award for which they qualify.
High Scholarship. Students must be in the top ten percent of their college class based on their cumulative grade point average and
meet the following specific requirements:
1. Required semesters in residence at UNL: juniors and seniors must have completed at least 3 semesters or 42 credit hours at
UNL; sophomores must have completed at least 2 semesters or 28 credit hours; freshmen must have completed at least 1
semester or 12 credit hours.
2. Hours completed first semester: seniors must complete a minimum of 9 hours, of which 6 must be graded A through F.
(Student teachers in the College of Education and Human Sciences may be exceptions.) Students graduating in December
may take only those hours needed for graduation. Juniors, sophomores, and freshmen must complete a minimum of 12 hours
first (fall) semester, at least 9 of which are graded A through F.
Superior Scholarship. Superior scholarship students are seniors graduating between December and August who:
1. meet the requirements for high scholarship for seniors, and
2. are in the upper three percent of the senior class of their college or have been on the UNL Honors Convocation list each
year since matriculation as a freshman.
Chancellor’s Scholars. Seniors graduating between December and August qualify for this award if they meet the following criteria.
1. Graduating seniors must have earned the grade of A in all graded collegiate work at UNL and at other institutions and a
grade of P for all classes taken in the Pass/No Pass grading option (excluding foreign study and collegiate work taken prior to
the student’s graduation from high school. The student must request the exclusion of a grade taken prior to graduation from
high school and the re-calculation of the GPA in writing to the University Honors Program, 118 NRC, 0659, by March 1). At
least 42 graded semester hours must have been earned at UNL by the end of first (fall) semester of the academic year of
graduation.
2. During first semester, a student must complete a minimum of 9 total hours with no more than 3 hours of Pass/No Pass
course work. (Student teachers in the College of Education and Human Sciences may be exceptions.) Students graduating in
December may take only those hours needed for graduation.
General Information for Honors. Students with grade changes or students finishing incompletes after January 1 should contact the
Office of the University Honors Program to see that these changes have been recorded.
All grades are averaged in figuring cumulative GPA. Students repeating a class to remove C-, D, or F grades will have both the
original and the repeat grade used to calculate GPA.
Only those seniors recognized as Superior Scholars and Chancellor’s Scholars (see above) need to order caps and gowns for the
Honors Convocation ceremonies. The Honors Convocation invitation will give appropriate instructions.
NOTE: Only University of Nebraska system grades are used to compute the GPA for Honors. For computing the GPA for Honors, a
student may request the exclusion of a University of Nebraska system grade earned in a course taken prior to graduation from high
school. This request for a re-calculation of the GPA must be made in writing to the University Honors Program, 118 NRC, 0659, prior
to March 1. UNL, UNO, UNK, and UNMC students are considered resident students.
NOTE: Each college also has their own recognition.
Recognition of Outstanding Academic Achievement
In addition to providing qualified students with an opportunity to enrich their academic programs by taking honors courses, the
University and its colleges recognize the academic achievements of all their talented and dedicated students.
The Honors Convocation: University and Chancellor’s Scholars
In April of each year, the Chancellor hosts the All-University Honors Convocation at which students who meet recognition
requirements are honored as University Scholars. Special recognition is given to Chancellor’s Scholars, graduating seniors who have
maintained a perfect 4.0 grade point in all their collegiate work.
.