To approve the following membership of a Nominating Committee to select Twin Cities faculty/academic professional candidates to stand for election to the Senate/Assembly Committee on Committees: John Beatty (Chair), Mary Dempsey, John Eyler, Allen Isaacman, Toni McNaron, and Deon Stuthman.

COMMENT:

The Nominating Committee is responsible for identifying Twin Cities faculty and academic professionals interested and willing to stand for election to the Senate/Assembly Committee on Committees, and will present a slate of candidates to the Assembly at its next meeting. If approved, the Faculty Assembly will elect two faculty/academic professionals to serve 3-year terms on the Committee on Committees.

FRED MORRISON, Chair
FACULTY ASSEMBLY STEERING COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To approve the following six names to stand for election to the Senate Consultative Committee/Assembly Steering Committee, from which three are to be elected by mail ballot by the Twin Cities and non-represented UMD faculty: Muriel Bebeau, Terence Collins, Daniel Feeney, Joseph Konstan, Burton Shapiro, and Billie Wahlstrom. A simple majority is required for approval.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Nominating Committee, appointed by the Twin Cities Campus Assembly at its December 2, 1999, meeting to name candidates to fill by the election process three 2000-03 Twin Cities/UMD faculty positions on the Senate Consultative/Assembly Steering Committee, presents the following six names, from which three are to be elected by mail ballot by the Twin Cities and non-represented UMD faculty:

MURIEL BEBEAU: 1979*, Professor of Preventative Sciences, School of Dentistry. University Senate member: 1993-96. Committee participation (past and present): Senate Judicial Committee, Senate Committee on Committees, Academic Health Center Faculty Consultative Committee (Chair), Biomedical Ethics Education Committee, Ethics Advisory Board for CLA, American Educational Research Association Awards Committee (Chair), Academic Health Center Strategic Facility Plan Steering Committee, Bush Faculty Development Program recipient, School of Dentistry Educational Policy Committee (Chair), School of Dentistry Faculty Affairs Committee, School of Dentistry Review Committee (Chair), Search Committee for School of Dentistry Dean

TERENCE COLLINS: 1976*, Director of Academic Affairs and Curriculum and Professor in General College. University Senate member: 1980-83, 1984-87. Committee participation (past and present): Senate Disabilities Issues Committee (Chair), All-University Advisory Committee on Composition, All-University Task Force on Coordination of Writing Instruction, General College Faculty Committee (Chair), General College Policy and Planning Committee (Chair), Center for Interdisciplinary Study of Writing Policy Council (Chair), University Non-Health Sciences Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (Chair), Graduate School Faculty Summer Research Award Committee, Bush Faculty Development Program on Excellence and Diversity in Teaching (Co-Director)

DANIEL FEENEY: 1978*, Professor of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine. University Senate member: 1983-86, 1987-90, 1991-94, 1995-98, 1999-02. Committee participation (past and present): AHC Faculty Consultative Committee, AHC Finance and Planning Committee (Chair), Faculty Consultative Committee (Ex Ofc), Senate Physical Plant and Space Allocation Committee, Senate Finance and Planning Facilities Management Subcommittee, Senate Faculty Affairs Committee (Chair), SCFA Tenure Subcommittee, SCFA Non-Retirement Benefits Subcommittee, SCFA Retirement Subcommittee (Chair), Senate Research Committee, CVM Curriculum Committee (Chair), CVM Pew Steering Committee, SACS Merit Review Committee, CVM Faculty Council (Chair), Collegiate Promotion and Tenure Committee, Health Sciences Policy & Review Council, University Grievance Board, University Grievance Officer, Graduate School-wide Committee to Review Graduate Program, University Working Group on Human Resources

JOSEPH KONSTON: 1992*, Associate Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: NONE. Committee participation (past and present): Department Advisory Committee, Department Computing Committee (Chair), Department Search Committees (Chair), Graduate Studies for Software Engineering Director, CS&E Department Head Search Committee, Digital Technology Center "Blue Chip" Position in Design Committee, DTC "Blue Chip" Position in Computer Science and Engineering Committee, Joint Computer Science/Psychology faculty position Search Committee, IT Instructional Computing Committee, Digital Technology Summit Organizing Committee (Track Chair), Faculty One-Stop Committee, Bush Faculty Development Program, Student ACM Chapter Advisor, President's Distinguished Faculty Mentorship Program, Minority Scholars Development Program, ACM/SIGCHI Executive Committee, Twin Cities Chapter of SIGCHI (President), ACM Lecturer

BURTON SHAPIRO: 1966*, Professor of Oral Sciences, School of Dentistry; Institute of Human Genetics, Medical School. University Senate member: 1990-93. Committee participation (past and present): Faculty Consultative Committee, Senate Finance & Planning Committee (Chair), Ad Hoc Committee to Examine Future Role of Human Genetics (Chair), Searle Scholars Program Selection Committee, Health Sciences Research Advisory Committee (Medical/Cancer Fund), Campus Fulbright Committee, Task Force on Doctoral Programs (Chair), CLA Center for Comparative Thought, Intercollegiate Task Force to Review Biochemistry Programs (Chair), Human Genetics Task Force (Chair), Committee on the University of Minnesota Press, Biomedical Science Research Screening Committee, Ad Hoc Committee on U of M Press Future, Search Committee for University Press Director (Chair), Senior Vice President for Finance and Operations Search Committee, Ad Hoc Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (Chair), Institutional Review Board: Human Subjects Committee

BILLIE WAHLSTROM: 1989*, Professor of Rhetoric, College of Agricultural, Food, & Environmental Sciences. University Senate member: 1995-98. Committee participation (past and present): Council on Liberal Education, Senate Judicial Committee, University Grievance , Graduate Research Advisory Committee, McKnight Land Grant Professorship Committee, University Computer/Telecommunications Committees, CIC Taskforce on Learning Technologies, Women's Studies Personnel Committees, Policy Board for the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing, College Promotion and Tenure committee, College Leadership Council, COAFES Technology Committee (Chair), Department Curriculum and Policy Committee

The Assembly Steering Committee serves as the executive committee of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly and forms the Twin Cities membership of the Senate Consultative Committee. Senate and Assembly legislation has merged the Twin Cities faculty and non-represented UMD faculty for purposes of Senate Consultative/Assembly Steering Committee elections. Should a non-represented UMD faculty member be elected, that individual will be a member of the Senate and Faculty Senate Consultative Committees, but shall not be a member of the Assembly Steering Committee.

Additional nominations, certified as willing to stand for election, may be made by (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculties, provided that the petition is in the hands of the Clerk of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly the day before the Twin Cities Campus Assembly meeting, and (2) nominations on the floor of the Assembly. The faculty representatives of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly shall reduce by vote the slate to twice the number to be elected.

Currently serving with terms continuing at least through next year are:

The terms of Mary Dempsey (Medical School), David Hamilton (Medical School), and Mary Jo Kane (College of Education and Human Development) expire at the end of the academic year.
--------------------------------------
*Date of initial appointment at the University.

John Beatty, Chair
Mary Dempsey
John Eyler
Allen Isaacman
Toni McNaron
Deon Stuthman

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To approve the following six names to stand for election to the Academic Health Center Faculty Consultative Committee, from which three are to be elected by mail ballot by the faculty from the Medical School-Clinical Sciences, School of Nursing, and School of Public Health: Susan Berry, Lisa Brosseau, Denis Clohisy, Laura Duckett, Jean Forster, and Christine Mueller. A simple majority is required for approval.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Nominating Committee, appointed by the Twin Cities Campus Assembly at its December 2, 1999, meeting, to name candidates to fill by the election process, three 1999-01 faculty positions (one each from the Medical School-Clinical Sciences, School of Nursing, and School of Public Health) on the Academic Health Center Faculty Consultative Committee, presents the following six names, from which one from each college is to be elected by mail ballot by the Medical School-Clinical Sciences, School of Nursing, and School of Public Health faculty.

MEDICAL SCHOOL-CLINICAL SCIENCES

SUSAN BERRY: 1984*, Professor of Pediatrics, Ophthalmology, and GCD, Medical School. University Senate member: 1997-00. Committee participation (past and present): AHC Committee on Committees, M.D./Ph.D. Steering Committee, Medical School Promotions and Tenure Committee, Medical School Dean's Faculty Advisory Council (Chair), University Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research (Chair), University Biomedical Research Advisory Committee (Chair), Search Committee for University of Minnesota Assistant VP/Associate Dean for Research, Search Committee for Director of Biomedical Ethics Center (Chair), Medical School Educational Policy Committee, Medical School Dean's Taskforce Research Workgroup, Clinical Research Taskforce (Chair), Medical School Administrative/Financial Restructuring Taskforce, MCB Building Research Taskforce, Medical School Committee on Committees

DENIS CLOHISY: 1991*, Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical School. University Senate member: 1998-01. Committee participation (past and present): Dean's Advisory Committee, Graduate Medical Education Committee (Chair), Medical School Education Council Finance & Effort Committee, Cancer Center Clinical Trials Scientific Review & Monitoring Committee, Medical School Research Work Group, NIH Clinical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel (ZRG4-GRM), NIH/NIAMS Long-Range Planning Meeting, Orthopedic Research & Education Foundation Peer Review Committee, American Orthopedic Association, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, Children's' Cancer Group, Orthopedic Research Society, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, American Board of Orthopedic Surgeons, American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, American Society of Cell Biology, Minnesota Orthopedic Society Board of Directors

SCHOOL OF NURSING

LAURA DUCKETT: 1977*, Associate Professor, School of Nursing. University Senate member: NONE. Committee participation (past and present): School of Nursing Consultative Committee (Chair), AHC Reengineering Phase II Education and Curriculum Team, AHC Diversity Task Force Faculty Subcommittee, AHC Intercollegiate Primary Care Education Council Ethics Subcommittee, AHC Research Associate Deans/Directors Group, Bush Foundation Faculty Development Program for Excellence and Diversity in Teaching

CHRISTINE MUELLER: 1994*, Associate Professor, School of Nursing. University Senate member: NONE. Committee participation (past and present): AHC Executive Committee for Strategic Planning, AHC Intercollegiate Primary Care Education Council (Co-chair), Search Committee for AHC Assistant Vice President for Education, AHC Educational Service Organization Planning Workgroup, Executive Committee for Center on Nursing Research of Elders, AHC Rural Health School Curriculum Committee, MN Colleagues in Caring State Health Policy Workgroup, MN Colleagues in Caring Workforce Data Workgroup, University of MN/MnSCU Nursing Pharmacology Distance Learning Steering Committee, Department of Human Service Long-term Care Advisory Committee, Minnesota Nurses Association Long-term Care Taskforce, Minnesota Nurses Association Nursing Informatics Resource Committee, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) Technical Expert Panel on Accuracy of the Minimum Data Set for Nursing Homes, Review Board for the American Nurses Credentialing Center Nursing Home, Magnet Recognition Program, HCFA Skilled Nursing Facility-Prospective Payment System Quality Medical Review Project

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

LISA BROSSEAU: 1991*, Associate Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health. University Senate member: 1997-99. Committee participation (past and present): SPH Research Committee (Chair), SPH Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Policy Committee, Department Student Admissions Committee, Department Faculty Advisory Committee, Department Teaching Committee (Chair), Department Laboratory Committee, American Industrial Hygiene Association (Chair), American National Standards Institute, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (Chair), American Association for Aerosol Research, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, American Public Health Association

JEAN FORSTER: 1988*, Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public Health. University Senate member: 1995-98. Committee participation (past and present): AHC Faculty Affairs Committee, SPH Faculty Consultative Committee, SPH Grievance Committee, SPH Educational Policy Committee (Chair), SPH Policy Council, U of MN Commission on Women, Campus Safety and Security Committee, Sexual Harassment Board, AAUP Executive Board, AHC Tobacco Advisory Committee

The Academic Health Center Provostal Faculty Consultative Committee serves as the executive committee of the Academic Health Center Faculty Assembly and reports to the Twin Cities Campus Assembly.

Additional nominations, certified as willing to stand for election, may be made by (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculties, provided that the petition is in the hands of the Clerk of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly the day before the Twin Cities Campus Assembly meeting, and (2) nominations on the floor of the Assembly. The faculty representatives of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly and UMD Faculty Senators shall reduce by vote the slate to twice the number to be elected.

Currently serving with terms continuing at least through next year are:

The terms of Patricia Ferrieri (Medical School), Judith Garrard (School of Public Health), and Kathleen Krichbaum (School of Nursing) expire at the end of the academic year.
--------------------------------------
*Date of initial appointment at the University.

John Beatty, Chair
Mary Dempsey
John Eyler
Allen Isaacman
Toni McNaron
Deon Stuthman

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To approve the proposed amendments to the Grievance Procedure. A simple majority is required for approval.

COMMENT:

Related information was distributed under separate cover to senators via campus/US mail prior to the meeting.

LAURA COOPER, Chair
GRIEVANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Laura Cooper, Chair of Grievance Advisory Committee, said that when the Regents adopted the Grievance Policy, they mandated there be a five-year review. The review has been conducted and a set of proposals were created and circulated to relevant employee constituencies. The general findings of the report were that no significant changes were needed but that a number of minor procedural adjustments were in order. One change was the inclusion of the right of a emeritus professor to pursue a grievance under the policy. Another is the introduction of an assurance of non-retaliation for persons pursuing grievances under the policy. Lastly, persons making claims of sexual harassment may choose to pursue those claims under the Grievance Policy or under the procedures of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action.

A senator then commented that he is in support of these changes which have arisen from actual cases and have resulted in adjustments made by the Grievance Office. In addition to the inclusion of emeriti in this policy, a new draft of the Retiree's Bill of Rights, now as a policy, will be before the Senate in April. He hoped that the Senate will provide enthusiastic support since the policy will, no doubt, meet resistance at another level.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

To approve the following resolution. A simple majority is required for approval.

WHEREAS the responsible and ethical conduct of research and scholarship is of prime importance in a research university such as the University of Minnesota, and to society at large; and

WHEREAS issues of ethics and responsible conduct are often complex and subtle, so as to require the sorts of explicit consideration and discussion that constitute formal training; and

WHEREAS some issues of ethics and responsible conduct are discipline-specific, while others have broad implications across all scholarly areas and can serve as a focus for all-University discussion and communication between disciplines;

THEREFORE be it resolved that:

The faculty, students, and staff of the University of Minnesota support a University-wide program of education and training in the responsible and ethical conduct of research and scholarship, with the following roles for members of the University community:

The Graduate School and Office of the Vice President for Research should continue with its efforts to establish a program to address current and continuing needs for education in the responsible conduct of research and scholarship.

Each graduate program should provide an ongoing educational program which should include - as appropriate to the discipline - such topics as research using human subjects, research using animals, authorship, plagiarism, confidentiality of privileged communications in peer review, data management, funding and fiscal responsibility, social responsibility and whistle-blowing, environmental health and safety, intellectual property, and conflict of interest; and should certify student participation in the educational program.

Department chairs/heads and deans should encourage, support, and attest to appropriate education in proper conduct of research by departmental personnel.

Individual faculty - as principal investigators, research directors, and mentors - should encourage their students and other research personnel to participate in such educational programs.

Students and other researchers should carry out their research in a responsible manner, and should participate in educational programs on responsible conduct of research provided by their program and/or department.

LEONARD KUHI, Chair
SENATE RESEARCH COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Len Kuhi, Chair of the Research Committee, reminded senators that earlier they passed a resolution recognizing the enormous efforts, lead by Professor David Hamilton, to revamp the way that research at the University is managed. Because the University was not conducting research properly, the University lost expanded authorities and was placed on Exceptional Status by the NIH. This resolution recognizes that everyone has to do their part in making this new system work by asking and encouraging faculty, students, and staff to participate and supporting the training and educational programs that have been established for faculty and staff as well as graduate students participating in research.

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

FOR INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:

February 9, 2000

Professor Fred Morrison, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
Law School
285 Law Center

Dear Fred:

At its meeting on February 8, those members of the Finance and Planning Committee who were present (there were only four of us, because it was a special meeting called on short notice) heard a presentation from Bob Baker on new Parking and Transportation policies. The policies, and changes, were recommended by a 9-member task force that included two faculty/PA (Jean Montgomery from Theater and Jane Phillips from CBS) and two students.

One of the policies recommended by the task force was this:

"Parking fees are priced to cover all services offered by Parking and Transportation Services, including all capital, operational, and administrative costs; transportation and transit related costs that reduce the need for parking; and related on-campus safety and security costs. Parking revenues will not be designated for projects unrelated or marginally related to parking, transit, or transportation."

In the document we received, the last sentence had a strike-out line through it, which Mr. Baker explained to us meant that Vice President Kruse did not accept that part of the recommended policy, and he is the one who finally signs off on the policies, after they have been reviewed by the President's Executive Committee. Vice President Kruse believes that the University should have more flexibility in the use of parking revenues. Mr. Baker told us that Vice President Kruse was aware that he--Mr. Baker--would be presenting this document, with the strike-out, to the Committee, and that he--Vice President Kruse--believed that both positions should be made known.

Those of us at the meeting recalled that it has long been the view of the Finance and Planning Committee (and, I believe, the Consultative Committee) that parking revenues should not be diverted to non-parking costs. We voted unanimously that the strike-out should be deleted and the language as recommended by the task force should be University policy.

I informed Mr. Baker that I would forward to you, and to Vice President Kruse, the action taken by the Committee. Although our numbers were small, I am certain that we reflected the views of the larger group, if its past position is any guide.

I trust you will dispose of our resolution as you deem appropriate.

Cordially,
Charles E. Speaks
Chair pro tem

cc: Vice President Eric Kruse
Mr. Bob Baker
The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning

STEPHEN GUDEMAN, Chair
SENATE FINANCE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Fred Morrison, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee, said that this item raises the question of whether revenues from parking and transportation sources should be used for other University purposes. In the past, the University policy was clearly changed to say that parking and transportation revenues would be used solely for parking and transportation expenditures. The current proposal is to delete this provision from the policy. Since there will be substantial costs in the parking system itself, the transfer of funds out of the parking system seems problematic. This is being presented to draw senators attention and receive comments.

To approve the following policy. A simple majority is required for approval.

INTRODUCTION

International activities and academic mobility occur without formal linkages and exchanges, and they are encouraged wherever those relationships fulfill the University's mission of teaching, research and service. In most instances, such activities are undertaken as a regular part of University activity, and individuals participating in them are guided by the normal standards of academic behavior.

There are many ways in which cooperation between individuals and units of the University of Minnesota and foreign academic institutions can take place. One form of cooperation is the exchange agreement, under which both formal, university-to-university agreements comprising faculty, student and research collaboration as well as less formal departmental or collegiate activities are proposed.

A university-wide exchange agreement is an enabling document providing for mutual benefits and reciprocal obligations, but it is not tied to specification of the involvement of particular numbers of persons or resources. Individual members of the University community and units of the University are free to enter into exchange agreements, provided that the individuals or units involved explicitly indicate that they are not representing a wider university community. No agreement precludes a similar arrangement with any other institution.

Most successful faculty exchanges are driven by common academic interests between one department or college and a counterpart at a foreign university. University-wide exchanges entail an institution-wide commitment and should not be undertaken without assessment of the need, scope and funding for such an agreement. The Office of International Programs (OIP) acts as a clearinghouse and registry for exchange agreements, and can advise regarding existing agreements and strategies for developing relationships.

International activities also occur in ways that do not involve exchange agreements. Such activities could include contracts with agencies or universities or contracts or agreements that sponsor foreign students to study at the University of Minnesota. These activities are not considered to be exchange agreements although they promote international exchange at large.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS

General University policies and rules of conduct apply to all students, faculty, and staff while participating in a University exchange program. Both institutions involved should subscribe to the principle of academic freedom.

While all exchanges are begun with the expectation that there will be continuing interest on the part of both institutions, all agreements should include a provision for review, for continuation or closure, every three to five years.

Many exchanges operate under a principle of reciprocity. For faculty exchanges, this means that small, informal exchanges need not require external funding. Although there may be no cash outlay other than travel support, the in-kind contributions of office space and administrative support should be considered. For some student exchanges, the reciprocity principle involves each student paying the tuition of the home university. This tuition is "banked" to pay the tuition of the incoming international student. Because of the financial implications of an imbalance created by lack of student demand, there should be a clear and continuing need for any bilateral exchange program.

TYPES AND DEFINITIONS OF EXCHANGES

There are many kinds of projects, linkages and relationships that define the international character of the University. Although the term "exchange" is used to define a variety of international connections, the University of Minnesota identifies three types of exchanges: comprehensive university-wide exchanges, faculty exchanges, and student exchanges. (Student exchanges are a subset of a larger study abroad program at the University of Minnesota. Most students going abroad select an organized program rather than a reciprocal exchange.)

PROCEDURES

Comprehensive All-University Exchanges

All-University exchange agreements should be proposed only when the purposes of the agreement cannot be satisfactorily carried out under the purview of a particular college or unit. Several historical relationships are currently maintained, and from time to time, new agreements are signed to meet larger institutional goals. For example, the president may sign a general, comprehensive agreement that includes faculty, students, research and information exchange. Such agreements allow for individuals and departments to connect with counterparts abroad, but do not force participation of an individual, department or college. These types of agreements are usually drafted as general establishing documents that permit interested units to develop detailed academic collaborations and projects.

Faculty Exchanges (not part of all-university agreements)

Faculty exchanges should be made at the level of the responsible University unit. There should be a legitimate area of common academic and scholarly concern, and the agreement should be demonstrated to be mutually beneficial. The agreement cannot obligate individual participation, and University resources committed under the agreement should be limited to those approved by the units involved in the agreement. At the department level, exchanges may include participation of faculty, research collaboration or information exchange. In addition, they may include informal participation of both undergraduate and graduate students.

Initially it is important to address academic benefits to the University of Minnesota and identify the home and partner institution's strengths relative to the proposed exchange. The linkage should fit within the mission of the University and offer a comparative advantage in relationship to any existing exchange programs.

Planning and matching interests with the foreign institution, or unit of such an institution, is the most important step in establishing a relationship. Exchanges should match at the appropriate institutional level; that is, departments and colleges should assess participant expectations in both institutions to ensure that the University of Minnesota's interest in a particular academic department or unit, is matched appropriately by the foreign institution.

Developing and maintaining an institutional relationship beyond individual academic interests and connections requires planning and commitment by the department or college initiating the exchange. Meeting the expectations of both exchange institutions requires an ongoing commitment of financial and human resources. If the proposed exchange is intended at the department or college level, the chair or dean should be the final approving authority for any resources committed or agreements made on behalf of the department or college. The Office of International Programs can provide sample agreements to serve as guides. OIP Staff is also available to review draft agreements.

In some cases, to meet legal requirements or leverage funds, the foreign institution may request a presidential signature from University of Minnesota, even though the exchange is based within a department or college. This is an appropriate request and OIP can facilitate a presidential signature.

Once finalized or signed, all agreements should be registered with OIP for inclusion in the University's international exchange database. Small ad hoc agreements and exchanges need not be elaborately documented on paper. However, the use of tested guidelines for planning exchanges are useful for even the smallest continuing collaboration.

Reciprocal Student Exchanges

All-University student exchanges. Although each campus of the University of Minnesota may establish its own exchange agreements, student exchanges open to all University students are administered by The Global Campus, a unit of OIP. The Global Campus negotiates agreements, organizes programs, and provides advising and academic services for students who wish to earn credit on an exchange program. Because of the large number of sites already available for reciprocal student exchanges and other study abroad opportunities, The Global Campus is not actively seeking to establish new university-wide student exchange agreements.

Unit-specific student exchanges. The Global Campus can offer guidelines, services and cost comparisons to departments and colleges that want to encourage study abroad experiences by promoting participation in international programs. Many existing opportunities can be tailored to the specific academic interests of departments. Developing a new exchange program should only be considered after reviewing currently available options, including other sorts of study abroad programs, with The Global Campus.

Graduate-student exchanges. Graduate student exchanges have no central administrative home, but may be organized by individual departments or colleges. The Office of International Programs can assist departments in developing such relationships.

THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Office of International Programs acts as a registry and clearinghouse for exchange agreements and provides assistance to faculty, departments and colleges in developing exchange relationships and agreements.

On an annual basis, the Office of International Programs will report to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy regarding international activities of the University. The report will include information on new exchange agreements, study abroad participation, as well as international priorities and strategies of the University. The report will be used to surface issues of concern and policy matters relevant to faculty involvement in the University's international programs. The Office of International Programs will also respond to specific SCEP requests for information.

JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Judith Martin, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this document makes Senate policy what practices already exist and makes it clears how future arrangements should progress.

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To approve the 2001-02 University of Minnesota Calendar. A simple majority is required for approval.

	UMC	UMD	UMM	UMTC (inc VetM)	Law	TC Med	TC Dent
Fall Semester
First day class	Aug 28, Tue	Sep 4, Tue	Aug 27, Mon	Sep 4, Tue	Aug 27, Mon	Sep 4, Tue	Sep 4, Tue
Last day class	Dec 14, Fri	Dec 14, Fri	Dec 11, Tue	Dec 14, Fri	Dec 5, Wed	Dec 14, Fri	Dec 14, Fri
Study day(s)				Dec 15, Sat
Finals	Dec 17-20, M-Th	Dec 17-21, M-F	Dec 12-15, W-S	Dec 17-22, M-S	Dec 10-20, M-Th	Dec 17-21, M-F	Dec 17-21, M-F
Holidays	Sep 3, Mon Oct 22, Mon Nov 22-23, Th-F Dec 25, Tue Jan 1, Tue	Sep 3, Mon Nov 22-23, Th-F Dec 25, Tue Jan 1, Tue	Sep 3, Mon Nov 22-23, Th-F Dec 24-25, T-W Dec 31-Jan 1, T-W	Sep 3, Mon Nov 22-23, Th-F Dec 25, Tue Jan 1, Tue	Sep 3, Mon Nov 22-23, Th-F Dec 25, Tue Jan 1, Tue	Sep 3, Mon Nov 22-23, Th-F Dec 25, Tue Jan 1, Tue	Sep 3, Mon Nov 22-23, Th-F Dec 25, Tue Jan 1, Tue
# instructional days	75	72	74	72
Between session period	2 1/2 weeks	4 weeks	4 weeks	4 weeks
Spring Semester
First day class	Jan 9, Wed	Jan 22, Tue	Jan 14, Mon	Jan 22, Tue	Jan 7, Mon	Jan 14, Mon	Jan 14, Mon
Last day class	May 3, Fri	May 10, Fri	May 3, Fri	May 10, Fri	Apr 26, Fri	May 3, Fri	May 3, Fri
Study day(s)				May 11, Sat
Finals	May 6-9, M-Th	May 13-17, M-F	May 6-9, M-Th	May 13-18, M-S	Apr 29-May 11, M-F	May 6-11, M-S	May 6-11, M-S
Break period	Mar 18-22, M-F	Mar 18-22, M-F	Mar 11-15, M-F	Mar 18-22, M-F	Mar 18-22, M-F
Holidays	Jan 21, Mon April 1, Mon	Jan 21, Mon	Jan 21, Mon	Jan 21, Mon	Jan 21, Mon	Jan, 21, Mon	Jan 21, Mon
# instructional days	75	74	74	74
Between session period	None	None	None	1 week
Intersession
First day class	May 13, Mon	May 20, Mon	May 13, Mon	May 28, Tue
Last day class/finals	May 31, Fri	Jun 6, Thu (Jun 7)	May 31, Fri	Jun 14, Fri
Holidays	May 27, Mon	May 27, Mon	May 27, Mon	None
Instructional days	14	13	14	14
Between session period	1 week	None	Overlap	None
Summer Term
First day class	Jun 10, Mon	Jun 10, Mon	May 20, Tue	Jun 17, Tue	May 28, Tue	May 20, Mon	May 20, Mon
Last day 8 week session/(finals) Last day 10 week session	Aug 2, Fri	Aug 1, Thu (Aug 2)	Jul 12, Fri Jul 26, Fri	Aug 9, Fri
Last day of summer term	Aug 2, Fri	Aug 2, Fri	Jul 26, Fri	Aug 23, Fri	Jul 26, Fri		Aug 9, Fri
Holidays	Jul 4, Thu	Jul 4, Thu	Jul 4, Thu (May 27)	Jul 4, Thu	May 27, Mon Jul 4, Thu	May 27, Mon Jul 4, Thu	May 27, Mon Jul 4, Thu
# instruction days/(10 week)	39 (49)	38 (48)	48 (48)	39 (49)
Between session period	4 weeks	4 weeks	4 weeks	3 weeks

COMMENT:

The calendars for the University of Minnesota-Morris and University of Minnesota-Duluth campuses are still under development and modifications may still be made to them after action has been taken upon this version. However, the calendars for the other campuses and units have been confirmed and will most likely not require further modifications.

JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Judith Martin, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this semester calendar has one change: spring break has been adjusted to allow for the possibility of equivalent terms in the first and second halves of the Spring Semester.

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

FOR INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:

Introduction

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy has received many comments, complaints, and suggestions over the years that relate to classrooms and teaching. We finally concluded that it would perhaps be useful to prepare a set of guidelines on classroom expectations that could routinely be distributed to faculty and students. At a minimum, we would likely urge that it be placed in a readily-accessible place on the University's web site.

We note explicitly that this document, if and when it is approved by the Senate, would NOT be POLICY; it would be, as the title indicates, GUIDELINES. The document is intended to identify good practice. It does not bind any faculty member or student; except in those instances where it makes reference to policies the Senate has approved, it is intended only to provide a set of modest principles and to serve as a helpful checklist.

The guidelines also set out expectations for the University and for departments/divisions. While not all of the standards may, at present, be met at all times (we recognize that may be an understatement), they set a standard to which we believe faculty and students should aspire--and which they should insist that their departments and the University aspire to as well.

This is a draft. We have not yet completed our own careful review of all of the provisions. We would, however, appreciate commentary and guidance from the members of the Senate, so that if time and the agenda permits, we can bring to the Senate in April a finished document that might meet your approval.

Preamble

All students at the University have the right to a civil, productive, and stimulating learning environment. In turn, instructors have a responsibility to nurture and maintain such an environment. Lively, even heated, discussion is not disruptive behavior. Both instructors and students have a fundamental obligation to respect the rights of each other and an equally fundamental obligation to respect the instructional setting as a place for courteous behavior.

Teaching and learning are vital to the mission of the University. The University believes teaching responsibilities to be of primary importance for its instructors (faculty, graduate teaching assistants, instructors, teaching specialists, etc.) such that performance by instructors shall be taken into consideration in determining salary increases, tenure, retention, and promotion.

I. Expectations of the University:

1. Provide clean and appropriate classrooms and facilities. People using the classrooms also have an obligation to help keep them clean and in order. See III(7) and IV(8).

2. Provide sufficient and suitable classroom, laboratory, and other instructional space.

3. Provide, in consultation with instructional staff, audio, visual, and technological equipment that is capable, current, and appropriate for classroom teaching and learning. Equipment should be in good working order and be adequately maintained and adequately supplied. Operating instructions should be provided so those unfamiliar with the equipment can use it.

4. A telephone number should be posted in all classrooms for contacting appropriate personnel to report equipment malfunction or need for supplies.

5. To provide training that supports excellence in the classroom: that provides instructional improvement and effective classroom instruction, including the use of technology.

II. Expectations of Departments/Divisions:

1. The course descriptions published in University catalogs and/or in the Course Guide must be consistent with the content of the actual course taught. Descriptions should make it clear that courses evolve, and content may vary somewhat with the individual instructor.

2. All instructors are encouraged to provide timely course descriptions for appropriate printed materials and web sites.

3. Courses must be offered on a schedule, or frequently enough, that permits students to graduate in a timely fashion. All departments are to have a four-year graduation plan in place; they need also to have course offerings that support it.

4. Classes must be offered at standard times. Abuse of standard class periods leads to inefficient use of classrooms and is disrespectful of students and faculty: students are forced to be late to other classes, and faculty access to classrooms they need is reduced. See http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/semclasses.html (1(a)) and, for the Twin Cities, see http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/TCclassschedule.html.

5. Any unclaimed final examinations or other major submitted student work should be retained by the department for at least one year so that they may be reviewed and/or claimed by students.

6. Departments must maintain records of grades in courses for a minimum of five years. Faculty leaving the University must give all grading records to the department.

7. Departments are to communicate with faculty about these expectations.

8. Departments should/must communicate with the appropriate administrative officer about problems in classrooms so the responsible party can solve the problems.

III. Expectations of Instructors:

1. Instructors are responsible for clearly communicating the course objectives at the beginning of each course. Class activities should be directed toward the fulfillment of these objectives and student performance should be evaluated in relationship to these objectives. If an instructor changes the course requirements or materials, students should be given timely notice consistent with the magnitude of the change (e.g., a few days for an additional article to read; some weeks if a research paper is to be added). See also #9, following. No major change can be imposed after the second week of the semester (e.g., adding a research paper or major examination).

2. Instructors are responsible for informing students in their classes of the methods to be used in determining course grades, i.e., evaluation criteria and the contribution of the final grade of each graded component.

3. Instructors are responsible for informing students of any requirements related to course attendance and participation.

4. Instructors are responsible for informing students of any special attendance requirements for each class taught. This includes, insofar as possible, specific dates, times, and places of additional outside-of-class work such as field trips, study sessions, or extra class meetings, and whether or not attendance at these additional activities will be reflected in the grade.

5. Instructors are responsible for evaluating and returning examinations and other student work with sufficient promptness to enhance the learning experience. Instructors should specify a time frame for retaining student work (e.g. homework, midterm exams, etc.) during the semester. Term papers and comparable projects are the property of students who prepare them; instructors who desire to retain a copy for their own files should state their intention to do so. (It is permissible for a faculty member not to return examinations, but students must then be permitted to review the exam in order to request clarification of a grade.) Instructors are strongly encouraged to provide sufficient graded feedback early in the term and before the deadline for withdrawing from classes to enable students to assess their progress in the course.

6. Instructors are expected to meet their classes at the scheduled times and be prepared for all class sessions. When instructors know in advance of conflicts with particular class dates, they are responsible for working with their unit to make appropriate alternate arrangements. Instructors are also expected to honor class periods; to consistently run longer than the class period is disrespectful or students who may have a class the next hour and it is disrespectful of faculty who are scheduled to teach in the room the next hour.

Instructors are also required to adhere to Senate policy concerning in-term and final exams: Exams during the term may NOT be offered outside of the regular class time unless there is notice in the class schedule. (See http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/semclasses.html, Section 1(b).) Final examinations must be offered at the time established by the schedule (but can be changed if certain criteria are met) and it may not be offered during the term (e.g., the last day of classes). (See http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/semclasses.html, Section 4, particularly (d), (e), and (f). See also Section 5 about students who are granted absence from a final exam.)

7. Instructors are expected to leave the classroom and its equipment in good order (e.g., clean the blackboards, chairs straightened, electronic equipment shut off). Students may be requested to help neaten and straighten a classroom and furniture. Keeping a classroom in good order includes taking away or disposing of everything one came in with, such as pop cans/bottles, food containers/wrappers, newspapers, etc.

8. Instructors are expected to schedule and keep a reasonable number of office hours for student conferences. Office hours should be scheduled at times convenient to both the students and instructors with the additional option of prearranged appointments for students when there are schedule conflicts. The minimum number of office hours is typically to be agreed upon by the teaching unit.

9. During the first class session of the term, instructors should:

-- Introduce themselves and any teaching assistants

-- Provide a detailed written syllabus (if it is available on a web site, it must also be available to the class in a hard copy) containing, at a minimum, the following information:

About the Instructor:

Instructor's name
Office location
Office hours
Phone number(s)
Fax number
Email address
Preferred method of contact (phone, email, fax, etc.)

About the Course:

Course title
Course designator
Course number
Number of credits
Day, time, and place of class meetings
Brief description of the course
Required and recommended materials and the location of the materials
Course goals, objectives, and expectations
Course prerequisites
Schedule of assignments, papers, projects, etc.
Criteria for grading and grading standards (definition of grades)
(see http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/gradingpolicy.html)
Make-up exam policy
(see http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/semclasses.html, Section 4 (d) to (f) for Senate policy on final examinations and Section 5 (b) concerning mandatory make-up exams for certain students)
Senate student academic workload policy (see http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/grades&acadwork.html, last paragraph)
Statement on accommodations for students with disabilities (1)
Statement on classroom conduct (2)
Statement on academic misconduct (3)
Statement regarding sexual harassment (4)

For sample statements that can be used on a syllabus, go to www. _______. Syllabi may also include this web site, rather than the statements. Note, however, that Senate policy requires on every syllabus language about the meaning of grades, student academic workload, and the penalty for cheating.

10. Instructors are obligated to report suspected academic misconduct to their department.

11. Instructors are obligated to take steps to have removed from class students who disrupt the educational process because of discourteous, threatening, harassing, or other aggressive behavior.

IV. Expectations of Students:

Students are responsible for being prepared to take the courses for which they register. They should not register for courses in which they lack the prerequisites. (Unless they have spoken with the instructor?)

Students are expected to carry on respectful and courteous interactions with instructors and with other students. Failure to do so may result in removal from the class and may lead to imposition of other sanctions by the University if disruptive behavior continues.

1. Students are responsible for all class meetings and materials, including any information contained in the syllabus. Students are expected to attend all meetings of their courses. They may be excused from class, however, to participate in religious observances and for approved University activities. Instructors must should? be notified at the beginning of the term about such planned absences. What about unplanned absences?

Students must attend the first class meeting of every course in which they are registered, unless they obtain approval from the instructor before the first meeting. Otherwise, they may lose their place in class to another student. (See http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/semclasses.html, Section 3.)

2. Students are expected to do their own work. If it is determined that a student has cheated, he or she may be given an "F" or an "N" for the course, and may face additional sanctions from the University. (See http://www.gen.umn.edu/courses/1137/conduct.html, Subd 1, Scholastic Dishonesty, and http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/gradingpolicy.html, Section II (2).)

3. Students are responsible for being on time and prepared for all class sessions.

4. Students are responsible for meeting all course requirements, observing all deadlines, examination times, and other course procedures.

5. Students are responsible for seeking help when needed.

6. Students who need special accommodations are responsible for working with the instructor at the beginning of the course, and with the relevant University offices.

7. Students may not make commercial use of their notes of lectures or University-provided materials without the express written consent of the instructor. Insert reference to Senate policy and web site, if one is adopted.

8. Students are responsible for helping straighten up a classroom at the end of a class period, if requested to do so by the instructor. Keeping a classroom in good order includes taking away or disposing of everything one came in with, such as pop cans/bottles, food containers/wrappers, newspapers, etc.

JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Judith Martin, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that SCEP has been working intermittently throughout the year to compile a set of statements and understandings about classroom behavior for faculty and students. The committee was impelled to begin these discussions by both faculty and student observations in classrooms. This policy is intended for discussion today and to receive sentiments from faculty and students on this effort.

A senator expressed concern over commercialization of class notes appearing in the policy, since it has not been discussed by the Senate.

FOR INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:

The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (on February 1) and the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (on February 9) heard a presentation about plans for significant technological upgrades for general purpose classrooms on the Twin Cities campus. The plan calls for significantly improving the instructional environment and for support for faculty in the classroom. It also requires a one-time expenditure of about $7 million to upgrade classrooms and recurring expenditures of about $1.3 million to keep them equipped and functioning.

The Assembly Committee on Educational Policy and the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning both unanimously endorsed the following resolution, which they present to the Assembly for information.

"The Committee receives enthusiastically and strongly endorses the recommendation for the general purpose classroom technology upgrade and urges it receive the highest priority for funding and implementation at the earliest possible date."

JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

STEPHEN GUDEMAN, Chair
FINANCE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Judith Martin, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this document outlines planning for technological upgrades in classrooms. A classroom advisory committee will be created so this document and feedback from the Senate will help this committee.

Q: What are the details of the expenditure?

A: A document is available with these details. The proposal came from work in the Subcommittee on Twin Cities Facilities and Support Services and a 1995 classroom study. The $7 million would focus on classroom technologies, such as internet connections, projectors, and VCRs. This is the first step to having classrooms wireless with computer interactivity.

MOTION:

To approve the following interpretation of the Statement of Standard Undergraduate Academic Policies and Practices, as follows (new language is underlined). A simple majority is required for approval.

Note: paragraph numbered 23 was narrative text contained in the document presented to the Assembly but was not acted on as policy. The paragraph beginning "All colleges and programs" is the Assembly policy.

23. Dean's List: There are various ways of recognizing high achievement on the Twin Cities campus. Most colleges and programs have a dean's list to recognize students at the end of each quarter. The dean's list system includes a quarterly transcript notation that recognizes high quarterly GPA. Not all colleges and programs have a dean's list and for those that do the required GPA varies. The College of Education and Human Development does not have a dean's list. It instead sends "good progress" letters to students completing 12 or more credits with a GPA of 3.75 or above. These letters, however, are not noted on a student's transcript.

All colleges and programs shall publish each term a dean's list, consisting of students who achieved a 3.67 GPA or higher and who completed a minimum of 12 credits (including College of Continuing Education credits) on the A-F grading system. There will be a transcript notation for each term that a student achieves the dean's list.

COMMENT:

The Assembly Committee on Educational Policy (ACEP) was recently asked, in connection with the dean's list, about a student who had completed 12 credits, of which 4 were on the S-N grading system and 8 were on the A-F system. The student had achieved the required 3.67 GPA; did he qualify for the dean's list?

ACEP proposes, in this amendment to the Statement of Standard Undergraduate Academic Policies and Practices, that a student be required to complete 12 credits on the A-F grading system before he or she qualifies for the dean's list. Absent such a provision, presumably a student could take a 1-credit course, earn an A, take 11 other credits and earn Ss, and qualify for the dean's list. This is not what ACEP had in mind when it recommended the original language to the Assembly.

ACEP recommends the Assembly approve this change.

JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Judith Martin, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this policy is for the Twin Cities Campus Assembly and clarifies that a student needs to have 12 credits on the A-F grading system to be eligible for the dean's list.

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To adopt the following policy. A simple majority is required for approval.

1. Any student who elects to graduate under the quarter calendar system must do so by June 30, 2006, after which time all graduation and degree requirements must be met under the semester system.

2. A department may, with the consent of the dean, waive provision (1) of this policy.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy was recently advised that the Council of Undergraduate Deans did not believe a policy was required concerning students who began their University work under the quarter system but who did not finish before the conversion to semesters. The Committee, however, was aware from the experience of its own members that students on occasion come back years after beginning their college work to seek a degree. Rather than put colleges and departments in the position of having to deal with requests (and complaints) concerning graduating under requirements that may not have existed for a number of years, the Committee proposes a sunset clause: students may not graduate under quarter system requirements after June 30, 2006, without the consent of the department head and the dean of the college.

JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Judith Martin, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this policy is necessary because of the change from quarters to semesters and provides that students who began under the quarter system need to complete their degree by June of 2006. If students do not finish by this date, they must satisfy semester requirements.

Q: Does this policy apply to graduate students?

A: No, only undergraduate students.

With no further discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

COMMENT:

Parts A, B, and C will be taken up as a single item with one vote. The parts may be taken up separately at the request of a senator. A simple majority is required for approval.

Part A:

MOTION:

To amend Section IV (1) of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy, as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; language to be added is underlined).

IV. OTHER PROVISIONS

1. In those instances when a college or campus permits a student to repeat a course, (a) all grades for the course shall appear on the official transcript, (b) the course credits may not be counted more than once toward degree and program requirements, and (c) only the last enrollment for the course shall count in the student's grade point average. When a student repeats a course in which the initial grade was D+ or lower, the most recent grade and credits count in GPA calculation and degree progress. When a student repeats a course in which the initial grade was a C- or higher, only the initial grade and credits count in GPA calculation and degree progress. The preceding sentence of this policy shall not apply to courses using the same number but where students study different content each term of enrollment; all such courses falling under this provision must be approved by the college.

. . . .

COMMENT:

The Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has found that the current policy on repeating courses causes problems. In courses that are in high demand (e.g., math), students may repeat a course even though they obtained a passing grade the first time, but in retaking the course access to the course is denied to other students who have not taken it. There is also an element of unfairness in the current policy: only affluent students have the ability to pay tuition to retake a course to improve their grade.

Part B:

MOTION:

To amend Section IV (8) of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy, as follows (language to be added is underlined).

IV. OTHER PROVISIONS

. . . .

8. A student shall have the right to petition the college scholastic committee or other appropriate body concerning any of the provisions of this policy. No student, however, may initiate an appeal of the grade earned in a course more than one calendar year after the grade was assigned.

COMMENT:

SCEP has heard tales, from time to time, of students who appealed a grade years after the course was taken, and sometimes after the instructor was retired or deceased. The Committee believes that any student who takes issue with a grade he or she received in a course should raise the question reasonably soon after the grade was given. A year seems to be ample time for a student to appeal.

Part C:

MOTION:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy recommends the following interpretation of the UNIFORM GRADING AND TRANSCRIPT POLICY, as follows (the interpretation is underlined), and urges the Senate to approve it.

II. PERMANENT GRADES FOR ACADEMIC WORK

1. There are five permanent grades given for a single course for which credit shall be awarded, which will be entered on a student's official transcript. A-B-C-D-F grades including pluses and minuses, as follows, and carry the indicated grade points. The S grade shall not carry grade points but the credits shall count toward the student's degree program if allowed by the college, campus, or program.

These definitions apply to grades awarded to students who are not enrolled in graduate programs, but the grade points are the same no matter the level or course of enrollment.

Instructors are permitted to hold graduate and undergraduate students who are in the same class to different standards of academic performance and accomplishment. The syllabus must make clear what the different standards will be for the different groups of students who may be enrolled in the class.

COMMENT:

SCEP was recently informed that there is confusion, in at least some quarters, about whether it is legitimate for faculty to apply different standards of academic performance to graduate students and undergraduate students who are in the same class.

We were informed that the Graduate School has no policy on this question, but that informally it has always assumed graduate credits required more work than undergraduate credits and that it is only logical that graduate students in the same class with undergraduates would be held to a higher standard of performance (e.g., write an additional or longer or more sophisticated paper, score higher on examinations to receive the same grade as an undergraduate, read more, etc.).

At the same time, SCEP was informed by the General Counsel's office that such a differentiation needs to be made clear on the course syllabus so that students know what the expectations are and that there are different expectations for them, depending on their status as students. SCEP assumes that any faculty member will make standards clear to students as a matter of good educational practice, but for the sake of completeness and in order to respond to the advice from the General Counsel's office, includes the requirement in the revision.

SCEP recommends that the Senate approve this clarification.