1999-00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA (No. 4)
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
STUDENT SENATE MINUTES
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
APRIL 20, 2000
The fourth meeting of the University Senate for 1999-00 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 20, 2000, at 2:05 p.m., as a joint meeting of the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 116 voting faculty/academic professional members, 23 voting student members, 1 ex officio member, and 4 nonmembers. President Mark Yudof presided.
President Yudof announced that a sheet was distributed to senators which listed specific times at which some agenda items will be considered. He also drew the attention of senators to two favorable editorials in that day's Star Tribune.
MOTION:
To approve the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URLs. A simple majority is required for approval.
VIRGINIA GRAY, Clerk
UNIVERSITY SENATE/
TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS
Ernst C. Abbe
Professor
Botany
1905-2000
Duane E. Anderson
Associate Professor
Mathematics & Statistics - UMD
1940-2000
Willis E. Dugan
Professor
Educational Psychology
1909-2000
George P. Hager
Dean
Pharmacy
1916-2000
William S. Howell
Professor
Speech
1914-2000
Matthew J. Huber
Professor
Civil & Mineral Engineering
1924-2000
Richard A. Meronuck
Professor
Plant Pathology
1941-2000
E. Ruth VanAppledorn
Professor
Music - UMD
1918-2000
John Preston Ward
Professor
Law School
1929-2000
Caroline R. Weiss
Associate Professor
Education and Human Development
1931-2000
4. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE AND ASSEMBLY ACTIONS
Information
University Senate
Constitutional Amendments
| Approved by the: | University Senate November 5, 1998; April 22, 1999; May 20,
1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration March 8, 2000 Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration March 9, 2000 Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration March 9, 2000 Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration March 9, 2000 Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration PENDING Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration PENDING Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration PENDING Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration PENDING Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | University Senate February 24, 2000 Administration PENDING Board of Regents PENDING |
Amendments to Faculty Tenure
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration December 3, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration December 3, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration December 3, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate May 20, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate September 30, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents - no action required |
Constitutional Amendments
| Approved by the: | Assembly April 22, 1999 and May 20, 1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | Assembly December 2, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | Assembly February 24, 2000 Administration March 8, 2000 Board of Regents PENDING |
| Approved by the: | Assembly December 2, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents - no action required |
| Approved by the: | Assembly February 24, 2000 Administration March 9, 2000 Board of Regents - no action required |
FOR INFORMATION:
In the recent election to fill vacancies on the Assembly Steering/Senate Consultative Committee, Professors Muriel Bebeau, Daniel Feeney, and Billie Wahlstrom were elected to three-year terms (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003).
VIRGINIA GRAY, Clerk
UNIVERSITY SENATE/
TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY
FOR INFORMATION:
On February 18, 1999, in adopting a policy on "Collection and Reporting of Grade Data and Syllabus Requirements," the Senate Committee on Educational Policy was required to provide to the Senate "data on the mean grade point average by designator and course level, on the percentage of As awarded by course level, and overall collegiate grade point averages . . . for grades awarded each Fall Semester." The policy also provides that "data should be reported for all undergraduate students."
COMMENT:
These data were distributed at the meeting and copies are available from the
University Senate Office.
JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
FOR INFORMATION:
Whereas transportation is a major issue on the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Campus; and
Whereas it is a concern of both students who reside on and off campus; and
Whereas Parking and Transportation Services tends to steadily increase user fees for parking to pay for debt service on existing and new structures; and
Whereas students need to explore more efficient means of transportation to and from campus; and
Whereas the discount currently offered to students to ride the Metro Transit buses is minimal; and
Whereas our campus is served by many bus routes with destinations or connections around the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro region; and
Whereas many of these routes are not utilized because the bus is not currently as cost effective as other modes of transportation;
Be it resolved that the Senate Committee on Student Affairs and the Student Senate Consultative Committee fully support the concept of an initiative to institute an unlimited-ride bus pass available to all university students, faculty, and staff.
COMMENT:
This resolution supports the concept of a discount mass transit pass for all students, faculty, and staff at the University, but not any particular plan that has been discussed. Both committees feel that the U Pass program would represent good public policy for the University and a definitive plan for all groups should be developed.
JESSE BERGLUND, Chair
STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
JASON REED, Chair
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Professor Fred Morrison, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), and the Assembly Steering Committee (ASC), said that these three committees have been busy during the past few months. The ASC is currently working on establishing a task force on University Bookstores, for the Twin Cities, regarding concerns being raised about the availability of non-course books and is addressing remaining issues relating to athletics. The appointment process will also begin soon for the new Faculty Academic Oversight Committee and, in consultation with the President, for the Advisory Committee on Athletics. The committees are also concerned with next year's budget and the following year's biennial budget development regarding the issue of compensation and salaries.
Professor Morrison said that there will be a heavy University Senate agenda next year so three University Senate meetings per semester are being planned. In the fall, there will be the President's State of the University address in September, an October meeting devoted to the final report of the Health Plan Task Force, and then a November meeting. In the spring, meetings will be set for February, March, and April.
Finally, Professor Morrison extended thanks to Professor Virginia Gray for two years of service as Clerk of the Senate and her guidance as Chair of the SCC/FCC during the tenure debates, since she is leaving the University at the end of the semester. The University Senate extended a round of applause.
Assistant Vice President Judy Kirk provided a PowerPoint presentation to the University Senate on the progress of the Capital Campaign. The presentation provided information on the time table for the campaign, the goals and priorities, University volunteers, campaign leadership, a summary of progress on objectives, gifts received, communications objectives, and success factors. She then opened the floor for questions.
Q: How much student participation is there on the volunteer committees?
A: There are no students on the Policy and Direction Committee although students are involved at the collegiate level.
Q: Can you reflect on the 32% that has been raised so far for student endowments?
A: At this point in the campaign, the differences in the percentages do not have more weight than reflecting which gifts have been received to date. Student support will be a significant part of this campaign since people want to give to create a flourishing environment for students. It is anticipated that the total received will exceed the goal.
Robert Fahnhorst, Director of Employee Benefits and Health Plan Task Force (HPTF) member, reported that the HPTF was created in 1997 to investigate the possibility of the University separating from the state for health insurance coverage. Membership of the HPTF now totals 30 with representatives from all campuses and employee groups.
Two months ago, an outside consulting form, Buck Consultants, was hired to help the HPTF. A month ago, focus groups were conducted by the consultants to find out what issues employees had with their health insurance. With the information from the focus groups, the HPTF decided to conduct a University-wide survey on health insurance satisfaction. Also included in the survey process will be retirees and graduate assistants.
The next step is for a Request for Information (RFI) to be sent to Twin Cities health insurance companies asking what they could provide if the University separated from the state. The consultants are also looking at University claim utilization data to determine how University claims compare to those from the state. During this process, the HPTF is also working with the state on supplemental insurance in addition to what is currently being offered.
The HPTF will be making a recommendation on whether the University should separate from the state in August and then consultation will be held with all employee groups and campuses before being brought back to the University Senate for action in the fall. If separation were to occur, the earliest date for implementation of the new system would be January of 2002.
Professor Robert Seidel, Chair of the Library Committee, discussed studies done over the past century about the exploitation of common resources. Once a resource is being utilized at a rate near its carrying capacity, additional utilization will degrade value to current users. At the University of Minnesota, the library is such a common resource.
During the past year steps have been taken to renew the libraries, such as the opening of the Elmer L. Anderson Library, although the facility is one-third smaller than what was originally planned because of budget constraints. The second project underway is the Walter Library restoration to house the new digital library center, which will decrease space for resources previously housed in this facility. To help faculty during the renovation, steps have been taken to provide materials by delivery. The Library Committee has also taken initiatives to preserve means of access, such as Telnet, which are used by many individuals.
These measures are small in comparison to greater pressures being placed on the libraries. One pressure is the cancellation of 650 technical journals over the past few years because the rising cost and increased profit margins for publishers have made them unaffordable. Faculty do not help this process by being placed in a publish-or-perish situation which forces them to contribute to for-profit journals. The rising cost of journals has also lead to a transfer of funds from the book acquisition budget to maintain collections.
A Library Task Force report was published a few years ago and outlined the need for $10 million of additional recurring funds for the library to keep up with all its responsibilities, especially in the digital arena. When this sum was presented to the legislature, it was reduced to $1.6 million, of which only $600,000 was in recurring funds. Also, only 1% of the $15 million being raised during the capital campaign has been collected to date.
In order to protect the commons, the idea of charging the public what it costs to serve non-members of the University community was considered. Students pay roughly $400 per year in student fees while the Alumni Association charged its members $30 a year to be a library member, without contributing any of this fee to the libraries. The alumni rate has been raised to $60 per year and the libraries now receive a portion of this fee.
The decline in financial support of the libraries stems from the switch to IMG since the libraries do not receive tuition dollars like collegiate units. Instead, the libraries must rely on central funding, which is not always available.
Professor Marti Hope Gonzales was elected Vice Chair of the University and Faculty Senates and Khaled Dajani was elected Vice Chair of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly.
MOTION:
That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Assembly approve the following slate of nominees to fill two 2000-03 Twin Cities faculty/academic professional vacancies on the Committee on Committees. A simple majority is required for approval.
MARILYN DELONG: Professor of Design, Housing, and Apparel, College of Human Ecology. University Senate member: 1994-95. Committee participation (past and present): Research (ex officio), 1995-99.
JAY HATCH: Associate Professor of Sciences, General College. University Senate member: 1992-95. Committee participation (past and present): Student Behavior, 1998-01.
PAUL STRYKOWSKI: Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: 1995-97. Committee participation (past and present): NONE.
CARL ADAMS: Professor of Information and Decision Sciences, Carlson School of Management. University Senate member: 1984-87 and 1994-97. Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 1991-92; Consultative, 1994-97 (Chair: 1995-96); Faculty Affairs, 1990-94 (Chair:1992-94); Planning, 1985-88 (Chair: 1986-87); Finance, 1986-87.
INFORMATION:
The Twin Cities Campus Assembly Bylaws specify that the Assembly shall elect by written ballot at its spring semester meeting faculty/academic professional members to fill vacancies on the Assembly Committee on Committees from a slate of candidates provided by a special nominating committee. Other candidates may be nominated by petition of 12 members of the Assembly. Petitions to nominate candidates not on the slate must be in the hands of the Clerk of the Assembly on the day before the meeting at which the election is to be conducted. The elected Twin Cities faculty/academic professional members of the committee whose terms continue at least through 2000-01 are:
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 guidelines. A simple majority is required for 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 civil, 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 gradebooks or their equivalents for a minimum of five years. Faculty leaving the University must give all grading records to the department.
7. Departments should communicate with the Classroom Management Office about problems in classrooms so the responsible party can solve the problems.
8. Departments are to communicate with faculty about these expectations.
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 should be imposed after the second week of the semester (e.g., adding a research paper or major examination). At the same time, instructors are not barred from adding material, or from announcing at the outset of the term that additional materials will be required as part of the course as the term progresses.
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 to 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 of 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. (See Section IV (8).)
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 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 should 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 permission from the instructor.
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 should be notified at the beginning of the term about such planned 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 places in class to other students. (See http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/semclasses.html, Section 3.)
2. Students are expected to do their own assigned 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 academic help in a timely fashion.
6. Students who need special accommodations are responsible for working first with the relevant University offices and then with the instructor at the beginning of the course.
7. Students may not make commercial use of their notes of lectures or University-provided materials without the express written consent of the instructor. (See the Senate policy at http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/classnotes.html)
8. Students may be responsible for helping straighten up a classroom at the end of a class period, if requested to do so by the instructor (see Section III (7)). 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. Students shall also not deface or damage classrooms or classroom furniture or equipment.
COMMENT:
The Senate Committee on Educational Policy presented this set of guidelines in draft at the February 24 meeting of the Senate. At that time we wrote the following Comment:
"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."
SCEP has made some additional (minor) changes to the draft that it presented in February, and now requests Senate approval of the guidelines. The blank space at the end of Section III (9) will be filled in as soon as appropriate language can be developed, in consultation with appropriate University offices. The web site will then offer faculty standard language that they can use on syllabi.
JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
MOTION:
To approve the following resolution. A simple majority is required for approval.
Be it resolved, the University Senate requests the administration to make changing the PeopleSoft system a very high priority. The system must automatically prevent students from registering for courses which end and start too close together to permit students to arrive on time at their next class.
COMMENT:
The Assembly Committee on Educational Policy (ACEP) has been concerned for years about students who register for overlapping classes, or who register for classes with end and start times that prevent the students from reaching their next class on time. In the spring of 1997 both the Senate and the Administration approved the Policy on Classes, Schedules, and Final Examinations For Semesters, which includes the following provision:
"No student shall be permitted to register for classes that overlap. Classes that have any common meeting time are considered to be overlapping, as are any back-to-back classes that have start and end times closer together than the standard change period for that campus.
"Only under extenuating circumstances shall petitions for overrides for such conflicts be permitted, and shall require the signatures of all faculty members involved. The decision to approve or disapprove such a petition for override is entirely discretionary with each faculty member involved."
"Students shall not be permitted to enroll in back-to-back courses, when both are on either the Minneapolis or St. Paul campus, where the ending time of one class is less than 15 minutes before the starting time of the next class. Students shall not be permitted to enroll in back-to-back courses, when one is on the Minneapolis campus and one on the St. Paul campus, that start or end within 30 minutes of each other."
SCEP/ACEP recommended these policies to the Senate and Assembly because of the educational implications of students constantly arriving late to a class. Late entrances are disruptive for other students and for the instructor. Constant late entrance means the student always misses part of the class period. Inasmuch as SCEP believes that what happens in a class is important for the educational experience of students, it does not believe the University should permit students to enroll for classes for which they will always be late. SCEP understands that all students may, from time to time, be late for a class period, for a variety of legitimate reasons. What it finds objectionable, however, is that one or more students may consistently arrive late, often considerably after the class period has begun.
Part of this policy has not been enforced. The PeopleSoft system does bar students from enrolling in courses which actually overlap. But the system, as presently configured, cannot preclude student enrollment in back-to-back courses with less than a 15-minute interval between them, or less than a 30-minute interval when one class is in St. Paul and one is in Minneapolis.
This problem is endemic because 5-day classes use only the MWF schedule. But some of the problem would be solved if classes met ONLY at the standard class periods. SCEP has been informed that some students are late for class because their previous class did not meet at a standard time, so they did not have 15 minutes to get from one class to the next. Even then, however, students who have courses on Minneapolis and St. Paul may enroll for classes that are too close together, so they are always late.
JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
Current Policy |
Proposed Changes |
Scope
|
Scope
|
|
|
Registration
Requirements
|
Registration
Requirements
|
|
LEONARD KUHI, Chair
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Len Kuhi, Chair of the Research Committee, said that these policy changes are being introduced in response to problems that occurred in the Academic Health Center (AHC). The proposed changes tighten the regulations for the use of controlled substances and thereby reduce the risk to the University.
Q: There is wording in the policy which refers to the responsible officer. The two responsible offices are the Department of Environmental Health and Safety (DEHS) and the Office of Regulatory Affairs. Therefore, which office serves as the responsible officer according to this policy?
A: Both offices must approve all forms.
Q: If a department investigator has their own DEA registration, they can petition to be allowed to maintain this registration. It is unclear whether the DEA or the location registrant, that is the department's registrant, has authority over that investigator's activities or reports. Are there three responsible parties to which an exempt DEA registrant would need to get approval from in terms of purchasing, location, and inventory?
A: The DEA has overriding authority. An exempted investigator would control the location registrant. Registration is done with the DEA and the Minnesota Board. An investigator is then responsible to the oversight functions of the Office of Regulatory Affairs and the DEHS. There would not be recurring approval from the DEA and the Minnesota Board.
The senator then said that the proposed policy includes this complexity which may be hard for some people to understand.
It was noted that these complexities would be dealt with in the implementation procedures.
With no further questions, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
COMMENT:
As an amendment to the Constitution, this motion requires a 2/3 majority of all voting members (117) at one meeting for approval, or a majority (89) of all members at two successive meetings. This is the second meeting at which this motion is being presented. It did not receive a majority of all members at the February 24, 2000 meeting. Therefore, it requires a 2/3 majority of all voting members (117) at this meeting for approval.
MOTION:
To amend the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution, Article III, Section 1,
as follows (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to
be added is underlined).
Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution - Article II. Twin Cities Campus Assembly
1. Membership
The Assembly shall be composed of the following voting members: (a) the
president of the University; (b) the Twin Cities campus members of the Senate
Consultative Committee, who shall serve as ex officio voting members; and (c)
the elected faculty, academic professional, and student representatives of the
various institutes, colleges, and schools of collegiate rank, and the Graduate
School. Only elected faculty/academic professional representatives or properly
designated faculty/academic professional alternates shall serve as the Faculty
Assembly; the elected student representatives shall serve on the Minnesota
Student Association Forum, or the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly,
as designated by the Student constituency in the electing college. Each member
of the Assembly shall represent the Twin Cities campus as a whole. The Twin
Cities campus deans, vice presidents, provosts, the University Librarian, and
the General Counsel shall serve as ex officio nonvoting members. The student
body presidents shall, if not otherwise elected, serve as
an ex officio nonvoting members.
COMMENT:
In the course of reviewing a bylaw change for the Twin Cities Campus Assembly, it was discovered that the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution states that there is only one student body president that is an ex-officio member of the Assembly when, in fact, there is currently more than one. The Student Senate Consultative Committee recommends that the requirement be changed.
JASON REED, Chair
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion a vote was taken and with only 107 in favor and none opposed the motion was not approved since it required 117 votes in favor. The motion will return to the Assembly in the fall.
NOT APPROVED
COMMENT:
As an amendment to the Constitution, this motion requires a 2/3 majority of all voting members (144) at this meeting for approval, or a majority (109) of all members at two successive meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.
MOTION:
To amend the University Senate Constitution, Article III, Section 4, as follows
(language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is
underlined).
ARTICLE III. UNIVERSITY SENATE
4. Election of University Senate Members
At its February 24 meeting, the University Senate approved an amendment to the constitution that redefined ex officio membership status. The proposed amendment listed above should have been included with that motion but was inadvertently omitted. It is now presented for action.
FRED MORRISION, Chair
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion a vote was taken and with only 124 in favor and none opposed the motion was not approved since it required 144 votes in favor. The motion will return to the Senate in the fall.
NOT APPROVED
COMMENT:
There are two motions listed under this item. Part A is an amendment to the bylaws. The motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Senate (100) at one regular or special meeting, or by a majority of all members of the Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented. Part B is an amendment to the rules. It requires a simple majority for approval. However, since Part A and Part B are tied, Part B, even if approved, will not be implemented unless Part A is also approved.
MOTION (Part A):
To amend Article III of the University Senate bylaws, creating a new Senate
Committee on Equity, Access, and Diversity, and abolishing two existing
committees (Equal Opportunity for Women and Disabilities Issues) (language to
be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is
underlined). Note: existing sections within Article III will be
renumbered appropriately if this amendment is approved.
6. EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
Membership
The Equity, Access & Diversity Committee shall be composed of at least 7 faculty members, 2 professional and academic staff members, 2 civil service staff members, 6 students, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Each coordinate campus shall have at least 2 representatives. Members should reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the campus, women, people with disabilities, and differing sexual orientations, as well as other protected classes under the University's equal opportunity policy. Campuses are encouraged to maintain or develop campus committees on related issues. The committee may form standing or temporary subcommittees or task forces on specific issues as appropriate.
Duties and Responsibilities
a. To advise the president and administrative offices on the impact of University policies, programs and services on equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity from a system perspective.
b. To promote compliance among the University community with equal
opportunity, affirmative action and diversity laws and policies relating to
students and staff.
d. To bring concerns to the Senate, as appropriate.
e. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or
policies as it deems appropriate.
f. To submit an annual report to the Senate.
g. The role and performance of the Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee
will be reviewed during the 2002-2003 academic year, with a special emphasis on
the extent to which the work of the two existing committees (Equal Employment
Opportunity for Women and Disabilities Issues) has been carried forward.
...
COMMENT:
Rationale for the creation of a Senate Committee on Access, Diversity, and
Equity:
The Vision
The University Senate is committed to diversity among faculty, students, and
staff and sees this as a common good. We seek to build a community that
actively opposes discrimination, that welcomes and celebrates differences of
identity and of viewpoint, and that is fully accessible. The journey toward
such goals will be greatly enhanced by a strong Senate voice which is committed
to this vision and which builds lively links to the many communities touched by
it. We believe it is essential to have a committee within our structure charged
with furthering this vision of equity, diversity, and access. Only such a
committee will allow us to fulfill our responsibilities to provide a faculty
voice in support of this vision within a system of shared governance.
Numerous Senate committees and groups have come and gone over the years, each
of which addressed portions of this concern. There are, moreover, numerous
advocacy groups, offices, and departments within the university that speak for
these groups and that are available for consultation. Two of them are Senate
Committees that have created models of advocacy on which this proposal builds.
The Senate Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women - created in response to
the Rajender Class Action Settlement - has a long and honorable history of
advancing the interests of women on campus. As a result of their efforts,
women are far more numerous, more visible as leaders, and more equitably paid
than they were 25 years ago. More recently the Senate Committee on
Disabilities has advocated for proactive compliance with legal requirements for
accessibility. In addition, temporary committees, such as the GLBT
subcommittee of the Social Concerns Committee have performed specific tasks and
then faded from existence. On the other hand, the Senate has no body that is
charged with consultation on issues of racial discrimination, the promotion of
racial and ethnic diversity, or concerns related to sexual orientation.
Therefore, we propose the creation of a Senate Committee on Access, Diversity,
and Equity in order to provide for consultative participation on the full
breadth of diversity and equal opportunity issues affecting faculty, students,
and staff at the University of Minnesota. Our proposal would replace the two
existing committees with a single committee that has a broader charge. This
committee will be empowered to create subcommittees or task forces on an as
needed basis to work on specific issues that may arise or in behalf of specific
constituencies that might feel the need for a distinctive voice.
Why now?
1. It is simply not tolerable to have such important concerns unaddressed by
any Senate committee.
2. Furthermore, neither of the administrators charged with responsibility for
these issues (Rusty Barceló, Associate Vice President for Multicultural
Affairs, and Julie Sweitzer, Director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative
Action) has a clearly delineated consultative body linked to the Senate. EEOW
has tried valiantly to fill this role, but its charge is far narrower than the
responsibilities that these administrators bear.
3. We need to coordinate our work in a way that recognizes the intersection of
identities and interests, and that creates a strong voice to consult directly
and clearly with the administration on the full range of issues regarding
diversity, equal opportunity, and access. This effort would underscore the
University-wide responsibility for these issues.
4. As we enter the 21st century we also note that conditions today are
considerably different than they were 30-40 years ago and solutions must be
framed in response to new realities. The proliferation of constituency based
groups, departments and programs, resource centers, and the like signal new
positions within the University. The committee we propose would not replicate
these groups, but instead would reach out to them and provide an environment in
which to find the areas of common ground and overlapping interests.
5. It would also be built on the recognition that most individuals have
multiple, overlapping identities.
6. We believe that it is essential to recognize the importance of working
together within a broad vision and building on the strengths that would have
been unimaginable only three decades ago.
* The new committee should include members of the current committees that will
be dissolved.
MOTION (Part B):
To amend Article III, Section 2, of the University Senate Rules in order to
remove reference to ex officio members on the Equal Opportunity for Women
Committee and on the Disabilities Issues Committee and to identify ex officio
members of the new Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee (language to be
deleted is
- Equity, Access, and Diversity--Office of the Executive Vice President and
Provost (two representatives, including one from the Office of Equal
Opportunity and Affirmative Action and one from the Office of the Associate
Vice President for Multicultural and Academic Affairs)
COMMENT:
This amendment identifies the ex officio members of the new Equity, Access, and
Diversity Committee and removes the reference to the two committees that have
been abolished with the bylaw amendment previously approved by the Senate. FRED MORRISON, Chair
DISCUSSION:
Professor Naomi Scheman, past Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity for
Women Committee (EEOWC), said that this motion would establish a new Senate
Committee on Equity, Access, and Diversity. The proposal for this committee
has evolved over several years and started by people talking about there not
being a Senate Committee which looks at issues of racial and ethnic diversity
as well as access and equity along these lines. The first thought was to
create a new committee, but this would complicate the structure. The second
idea was that the issues involved with equity, access, and diversity are
complex and interrelated.
From these discussions, the idea of an umbrella committee, which would attend
to issues of access to the University, equity once at the University, and
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act in an interrelated manner,
was created. The drafting committee wanted to place the emphasis on diversity
and its value at the University, since issues of access and equity are
necessary to fulfill a diversity mission.
The proposed committee consists of members committed to access, equity, and
diversity across a range of differences and then active subcommittees which
address themselves to particular aspects. As a consequence of this motion, two
standing Senate Committees, the EEOWC and the Disabilities Issues Committee,
would be dissolved. The work of these committees would then be placed on two
subcommittees of the umbrella committee. The rationale is that an overarching
committee would bring visibility and clout to issues and that concerns from
constituencies will continue to be represented through the subcommittees.
Professor Scheman noted that while the EEOWC endorsed the structure proposed in
this motion, the Disabilities Issue Committee did not endorse this proposal out
of concern that the loss in status from committee to subcommittee would be
problematic and that their specific issues would not receive adequate
attention. She noted that there is a proposal for review of this committee to
make sure that the structure is working and fulfilling the function of
increasing attention to issues.
Professor James Carey, Chair of the Disabilities Issues Committee, then
presented the dissent from that committee regarding the effectiveness of this
change. The Disabilities Issues Committee has 14 members from across the
campuses, of which one-third either have disabilities themselves or have
children with disabilities. Past activities include: parking and
transportation in terms of the Paratransit service offered; the cultural
diversity theme language which now exists yet is void of mention of physical or
learning disabilities, so discussions are being held with the Council on
Liberal Education to add more courses on other types of disabilities;
PeopleSoft issues; Facilities Management construction; and adequate
documentation of disabilities.
While the Disabilities Issues Committee agrees with the value of forming a new
body on diversity, it disagrees on how this should be accomplished.
Specifically, the committee is concerned that an umbrella committee would not
be as concerned with disabilities issues or be an effective advocate for all
the issues it will represent, and that a subcommittee will not provide needed
continuity. The Disabilities Issues Committee therefore asks that the current
committees remain and a diversity council be formed to deal with these other
issues.
A senator stated that he, and the Crookston disabilities committee, agreed with
Professor Carey since his campus is concerned that their needs will not be met
with this new structure.
Professor Scheman responded that review of the new committee has been included
in the proposal so that if needs are not being met, the new committee will be
dissolved and the old structure will be reinstated. Also, disabilities would
be considered a standing subcommittee and not ad hoc. Subcommittees would
include membership from the umbrella committee, but would then be augmented by
other people from the University who have a interest and expertise in the
subcommittee's specific charge. The creation of several new committees also
raises the issue of staff support.
Another senator said that while she appreciates the desire to create a cultural
umbrella, the Disabilities Issues Committee is specifically focused on physical
issues which would be in direct contrast with the umbrella committee's much
broader, social agenda. Because of the work that needs to be done, she would
worry that specific concerns would not be addressed.
Professor Marti Hope Gonzales, current Chair of the Equal Employment
Opportunity for Women Committee (EEOWC), stated that even though there is a
risk involved in changing a structure which is working, there was consensus the
change was being made for the good of the University as a whole. To guarantee
this, an annual evaluation was included for the first three years. She also
mentioned that it will be easier for the administration, whose charge it is to
address policies and procedures of equity, access, and diversity, to consult
with one committee.
With time expired, a vote was then taken and Motion A failed with 52 in favor
and 57 opposed. Motion B was then withdrawn from consideration.
MOTION A NOT APPROVED
COMMENT:
As an amendment to the bylaws, this motion requires either a majority of all
voting members of the Senate (100) at one regular or special meeting, or by a
majority of all members of the Senate present and voting at each of two
meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being
presented.
MOTION:
To amend the University Senate bylaws, Article III, Section 8, as follows
(language to be deleted is
8. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
The Faculty Affairs Committee is concerned with policies and procedures that
influence the personal and professional welfare of the faculty
Membership
The Faculty Affairs Committee shall be composed of at least 10 members of the
faculty, one member of the academic professional staff, one graduate assistant
and one undergraduate student, and ex officio representation as specified by
vote of the Senate. The academic professional staff member shall be nominated
by the Committee on Committees in consultation with the chair of the Academic
Staff Advisory Committee with the approval of the Senate. All other members
shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the
Senate. The chair (or his/her designee) shall serve as an ex officio nonvoting
member of the Faculty Consultative Committee.
Duties and Responsibilities
a. To examine all policies and procedures of the University which influence the
professional and personal welfare of the faculty
b. To recommend to the Faculty Senate additions,
c. To examine and propose University policies and programs associated with
faculty
d. To examine and propose benefit options and benefit option counseling
available for current and retired faculty
e. To review the options, performance, and reporting of the Faculty Retirement
Plan, with the assistance of the University's Assets Management and Employee
Benefits Offices and
f. To monitor any legislation and other policies affecting faculty
g. Interact with the Academic Staff Advisory Committee (ASAC) on
all items that jointly impact academic staff and faculty, such as benefits and
retirement.
RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 108 in
favor and none opposed.
APPROVED
MOTION:
To accept in principle the following report and that preparation of
implementing actions be presented to the University Senate at the first meeting
of fall semester, 2000, by the Senate Consultative Committee. A simple
majority is required for approval.
April 6, 2000
Professor Fred Morrison, Chair
Dear Fred:
I attach Part II of the report of the Special Senate Committee on Student
Academic Integrity. This part of the report responds to the first and second
charge in your letter of appointment of 15 July 1999:
2. To review the procedures for enforcement of the student academic
integrity standards. How should these policies be enforced and what
penalties should be applied? Should the faculty member who believes that
misconduct has occurred be responsible for enforcement or should that function
be turned over to a college or central office? Do faculty members have a duty
to report and pursue perceived violations of academic conduct standards? How
should a faculty member treat material that the faculty member believes was
submitted in violation of the standards? What sort of processes are appropriate
for decisions of these cases? What kinds of penalties should be applied?
The Committee met over several months, talked with a number of individuals, and
read a voluminous amount of material. This report is our view of how the
University of Minnesota can best address questions of academic integrity.
I will join the Senate Consultative Committee on April 6 to discuss the
report.
Cordially,
cc: President Mark Yudof
April 6, 2000
STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
The primary purposes of a research university, whether private, public, or of
public land-grant status like the University of Minnesota, are the discovery,
advancement, and dissemination of knowledge by all apt and available means.
This compound effort includes the teaching of students enrolled for the
purposes of learning and of taking degrees that certify the fields and quality
of their academic achievements. As one of the nation's leading research
universities, the University has an obligation to communities not only local
but national and international to ensure the integrity of its research and
scholarship, and of its instruction and certification by degree. The integrity
of a university depends especially upon the integrity of its faculty members,
but necessarily also on that of its regents or trustees, administrators, and
civil-service staff, and emphatically of its students.
I. CHARGES TO THE COMMITTEE
The Special Senate Committee on Student Academic Integrity was appointed by
letter dated 15 July 1999 from the Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee,
Fred Morrison. It was given three charges, two concerned with all students in
the University, the third charge with the athletic programs of the Twin Cities
Campus. We addressed the third charge first because it seemed most pressing and
most readily addressed, and submitted our report on 1 November 1999. This is
the second and final report, addressing the first two charges.
On these two charges we met fourteen times and consulted extensively by e-mail
between meetings. We are gratefully indebted to the persons we interviewed for
sharing their expertise and experience with us: Associate Dean Jean Cameron,
College of Liberal Arts; Professor Virginia Gray, Political Science; Dr. Darwin
Hendel, Institutional Research and Reporting; Associate Dean Peter Hudleston,
Institute of Technology; Associate Dean Meredith McQuaid, Law School; Ms.
LeeAnn Melin, New Student Programs; Ms. Jan Morse, Student Dispute Resolution
Center; Associate Dean Gerald Rinehart, Carlson School of Management; Associate
Dean Wendy St. Peter, College of Pharmacy; Ms. Barbara Shiels, Office of the
General Counsel; and Professor George Spangler, College of Natural
Resources.
Under charge 1 we were asked specifically to "review the policies and standards
regarding student academic integrity and make recommendations for improvement
of University policies. The task force should examine the standards in the Code
of Student Conduct and in the various college policies." We have reviewed,
examined, and recommended in response, not point by point according to the
charges, but in the report as a whole. Under charge 1 we were also asked the
following questions--to which we give (italicized) answers in brief here; we
address them in effect in various parts of the report, not always directly in
these terms.
[2a] Should a uniform policy apply to undergraduate, graduate, and professional
students, equally, or [2b] are there circumstances requiring special policies
for some of these groups? A uniform policy, expectation, and standard of
justice should apply to all students, accommodating special
circumstances and different levels as necessary and appropriate.
[3] Should more explicit standards be adopted regarding plagiarism, use of
materials obtained from other sources and services, such as the Internet, etc.?
Yes and no. The standards we recommend apply to any kind of cheating. To
attempt to spell out the legion possible ways of cheating by technological
means, which come into being and mutate almost by the hour, would seem to be to
court a costly cadre of sorcerer's apprentices to identify, sort, list, and
count the proliferating methods as Norton does computer viruses. But we fully
recognize the need to help students understand that plagiarism may include
non-print sources.
[4] How should these policies be communicated to students? By all available
and expedient means, from notice given in application materials through annual
or semestral reminders made by e-mail to statements made on every syllabus,
assignment, and examination.
The second charge, to "review the procedures for enforcement of the student
academic integrity standards," asked six representative questions that are too
complex to be answered in brief (except for no. 3, Yes) but are given
here for the record and because all are addressed in effect in this report.
[2] Should the faculty member who believes that misconduct has occurred be
responsible for enforcement or should that function be turned over to a college
or central office? ("Faculty" is to be understood in some contexts as referring
to "all instructional staff")
[3] Do faculty members have a duty to report and pursue perceived violations
of academic conduct standards?
[4] How should a faculty member treat material that the faculty member
believes was submitted in violation of the standards?
[5] What sort of processes are appropriate for decisions of these cases?
[6] What kinds of penalties should be applied?
II. PRINCIPLES AND OBSERVATIONS
This report is intended to be the response of the University of Minnesota to a
problem perceived as nationwide and very serious if not epidemic in American
institutions of higher learning. It is concerned first and foremost with
promoting academic integrity as the rule and only secondarily with detecting
and punishing academic dishonesty as the exception, which is serious enough,
however, to require addressing.
Integrity has become a buzzword more often conjured with than
understood. Its essential meaning is "something undivided; an integral whole,"
wholeness, soundness. It has a special application in relation to humans that
is succinctly expressed by the Oxford English Dictionary as "soundness
of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, esp. in relation to
truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity" (OED2 3b).
Integrity is more than what is left when cheating has been eliminated, and it
is not passive. It is perhaps easiest recognized by its manifest distance from
self-interest, and at its best it is ethical excellence in action. Not every
institution, program, person, or act can be instantly assessed as having or
lacking integrity; but these qualities constituting it are widely, not to say
universally, recognized as of inestimable value in human relations and
essential for a civil and orderly society. Without such qualities and
corresponding actions, there is no "integrity."
Academic integrity is integrity in academia, and like integrity (or the
lack of it) everywhere else, it is recognizable not as a passive state or
attitude but by actions characterized by it. Student academic integrity
is vital to the integrity of both the research and the instructional and
degree-granting missions of the University. And it is essential if honest
students are to have the benefit of due recognition of their own work
uncompromised by the dishonest practices of students who cheat. Cheating
undoubtedly hurts the cheater, because "he that is unjust in the least is
unjust also in much"; but cheaters most hurt other students, first in
their individual courses, and on their projects and written work from freshman
composition to doctoral dissertations; and again by devaluing and discrediting
a university's degrees. That society as a whole is affected for the worse by
such practices is obvious.
All acts of academic dishonesty are forms of cheating, which means
essentially "to deal fraudulently, practice deceit" (OED2 4a). For
students in the University that means to gain unfair advantage over other
students--most often by plagiarism or by copying or sharing answers on
examinations. Other ways to cheat include depriving others' work of credit by
preventing its reaching the instructor, for example, or falsely claiming a
personal hardship to gain extra time on examinations. The present resources of
the World Wide Web are only the beginning of sophisticated means of cheating
that will continue to increase, multiply, and become more subtle with the
advances of technology. But cheating is cheating, whatever the means, and it
should be well understood by anyone capable of functioning in society, not to
mention qualified to be a member of the University community. Anyone who has
the slightest doubt about what cheating is should at once make the effort to
find out, as by consulting the Office of Academic Integrity (OAI; see III.A).
Instances of cheating will not be condoned when detected, whatever the
explanation; and ignorance of what constitutes cheating is no excuse for
cheating.
We have no compelling reason to think that cheating is epidemic at the
University of Minnesota, but students have reported in surveys that they "saw
another student cheat on a quiz or test in a University course" and "knew a
student who handed in someone else's work as their own (on a take-home test or
assignment)." From a survey of freshmen we know also that for nearly 70% it was
important or very important for "the University to take firm
action to protect academic integrity and hold those who cheat responsible"
(Cooperative Institutional Research Program Freshmen Survey, conducted 1999).
And for only 3% was it "not at all important." Most cheating tends to be of two
kinds: impulsive or "opportunistic" cheating; and calculated and deliberate,
sometimes habitual, cheating. Neither kind can be tolerated, but the former is
plainly less grave than the latter; it can probably be reduced or even
eliminated by instructors' taking reasonable precautions to limit the
opportunity, and by the President's and the University Senate's regularly
reminding all students to refrain from cheating in any form, for the sake of
their fellow students, their university, and their own integrity. Deliberate
and persistent cheating is an antisocial and destructive practice much more
serious, and the University must make every effort to detect instances and
their perpetrators, penalize them appropriately, and, if they offend
egregiously or repeatedly, expel them.
The University assumes integrity as the norm of its students' behavior. But
even where there is thought to be no cheating, prudence argues for the
precautionary benefit of an integrity code and a declaration of academic
integrity to be signed by all students. This declaration should be signed
during the academic part of their initial orientation to the University, as
freshmen, transfer students, or entering graduate or professional students, or
on an appropriate equivalent occasion in units where there is no formal
orientation. Making such a declaration will alert students to their personal
responsibility to their fellow students and the University as a whole, and to
the penalties imposed for cheating when detected and proved. Ideally, this
would confer lifelong immunity from cheating upon the signer; but because there
are and will be exceptions, efforts to inform and prevent must be supplemented
by those to detect and to punish as necessary.
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, we recommend that all students of
the University sign this declaration upon their admission:
We also recommend that as a reminder and reaffirmation students sign and date
the following statement to be printed on blue books and other examination
forms:
Finally, we recommend that students sign the following statement for
out-of-class written papers or projects:
III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CREATING A CULTURE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
The Committee firmly believes that civility and mutual respect, and the
practice of academic integrity, are reciprocal. Although the University cannot
strictly legislate and enforce civility and respect as such, it has a primary
obligation to profess, practice, and promote academic integrity; to actively
discourage violations; and to ensure that proven violations are suitably
penalized. In some smaller and less complex institutions, these ends are
accomplished by an honor system, which we considered but rejected as
inappropriate in an institution as large, diverse, and complex as the
University of Minnesota, where long experience has assured us all that there
will be some cheating irrespective of steps taken to prevent it (on honor codes
and systems, see further in Appendix B). We therefore give, in the Penalties
section of the report (V), recommendations related to specific principles,
policies, procedures, and infrastructures that we think need to be instituted
(or reinforced where already existing) to facilitate investigation and take
punitive measures as appropriate.
A. OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
The Committee strongly recommends the creation of an Office of Academic
Integrity (OAI). OAI should (1) be a central repository of resources to aid
members of the University community in promoting academic integrity, (2)
sponsor discussion across the University of reasons and ways and means to
promote and defend academic integrity, and (3) develop and disseminate resource
materials that promote academic integrity and condemn cheating. A primary
purpose of this office should be to help the faculty by easing the burden of
pursuing cases of suspected cheating, which in the past has been sufficiently
onerous, time-consuming, thankless, and counterproductive that it has been less
and less often undertaken. We assume that the office will not be involved in a
case unless the faculty member chooses to involve it, but that it will be
ready, willing, and able to help when consulted.
OAI should be headed by an Academic Integrity officer reporting to the office
of the Executive Vice President and Provost (with the Academic Health Center
reporting to OAI on these issues). The Committee does not believe that the
title and responsibilities of the office should be added to those of an
existing position because there would be too much for anyone to do who already
has a full-time position, and the responsibilities would not receive adequate
attention as a consequence. We envision that the responsibilities of the
academic integrity officer, if carried out fully and well, may consume more
time than one person can give them. It will be essential to provide adequate
staffing and resources for OAI; otherwise the effort will appear a mere
façade and induce further skepticism about the University's commitment
to academic integrity. The responsibilities of the Office of Academic
Integrity should include at least the following:
b. investigating claims of cheating submitted to the office by faculty members
and, where cheating has been found to have occurred, imposing a penalty (or
recommending a penalty to the faculty member if he or she wishes to deal with a
matter that is not required to be addressed by OAI, such as the grade for an
assignment or the course)
c. advising students of their rights and responsibilities when an allegation
of cheating is made
d. receiving and investigating as appropriate allegations of cheating made by
any member of the University community
The Committee also recommends the creation of an advisory committee for the
Office of Academic Integrity that would be composed of faculty, P&A staff,
and students, the Academic Integrity officer as an ex-officio member, and at
least one undergraduate adviser from one of the larger colleges. The specific
bylaw recommendation we propose for submission to the University Senate is
Appendix A of this report.
OAI materials might include but should not be limited to the following on an
OAI Web site and otherwise (with OAI logo and telephone number wherever
appropriate):
b. An even more brief statement for use in syllabi, on exam forms, and at
other useful sites
c. A page specifying best classroom practices to prevent cheating
d. A page of guidance on how to deal with cases of cheating addressing human
interaction as well as University procedures and resources
e. A page of examples of what constitutes cheating (side 1) and what doesn't
(side 2)
f. A striking symbol or logo for OAI (it was suggested that a design contest
for this might be a good way to launch the initiative)
Our initial recommendation is that OAI serve the Twin cities campuses, because
we did not have representatives from the other campuses on our Committee or
have time to consult with those campuses. We believe, however, that they should
be actively involved in the discussions and invited to advise the Senate,
perhaps through the Committee on Educational Policy, on how they might best be
integrated into the office and practices we have recommended. We believe that a
revised set of recommendations, intended to embrace the coordinate campuses in
whatever way they believe would work best for them, should be brought back to
the Senate in Spring 2001.
B. OTHER STEPS TO PROMOTE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PREVENT ACADEMIC FRAUD
The Committee recognizes that the entire University community has a role to
play in preventing cheating. We can publicly, explicitly, and frequently assert
that academic integrity is important. Discuss it at every opportunity. Say WHY
it is important. And we can carry these efforts into our every activity. For
example, the President should discuss academic integrity in his annual address
and at least briefly at Convocation. The University should mandate printing the
affirmation-of-honesty statement (end of II, above) on all blue books and other
examination forms. Other ways to communicate this message include the
following.
A. Admissions
Each application packet should include a brief discussion of the integrity code
and the declaration to be signed early in the first year.
B. Orientation
Orientation sessions should devote time to explicit discussion and examples not
only of cheating but of academic integrity. What does academic integrity look
like? Why is it important? These sessions should be interactive, so that
students start to internalize the meaning and value of integrity. They should
talk about it with each other.
Introduce the idea of a university, of the discovery and production of
knowledge, of educating for the future
2. College-level orientation
Tailor the presentation to local cultures
3. Transfer students
It cannot be safely assumed that they have been sufficiently prepared for the
University's demands for academic integrity, and they should be oriented
accordingly
4. Graduate and professional student orientation
There is a rich variety of cases to draw upon for the discussion, from both a
student's and a teacher's and adviser's perspective. Graduate and professional
students are especially well positioned to understand the value of integrity in
the dissemination of knowledge. As teaching assistants and prospective faculty
members, they will appreciate as professional development any instruction on
how to prevent cheating and promote academic integrity among their own
students.
IV. RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF ALL PARTIES
After its detailed and ranging investigation, the Committee concluded that the
most effective way ultimately to promote academic integrity is to cultivate an
environment, or culture, of civility in which acts of mutual respect and
responsibility are the daily routine of University life and academic integrity
is a natural corollary. To that end we provide here a series of recommendations
aimed at promoting rights, responsibilities, and reasonable expectations among
all those who make up the University community--faculty, staff, students,
administrators, and Regents. In the following sections we have delineated these
rights, responsibilities, and expectations for each of the three major groups
who are directly responsible for maintaining the academic integrity of the
University.
A. THE FACULTY AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
Faculty vigilance is the most important defense against cheating. Faculty
members can create an environment that promotes academic integrity in the
classroom, the seminar room, the laboratory, and every other place in the
University. And it is they who must take the lead, who can best model academic
integrity, and who can best articulate what academic integrity is designed to
protect and achieve. The faculty should aim not just for the absence of
cheating, but to get students to value integrity and practice it beyond the
merely academic because it is an important moral and social value of worth to
all.
If faculty members are to be the line of defense against cheating, they need
somewhere to turn for help in dealing with students who cheat. They also need
support from department heads and deans in making decisions about dealing with
cheating. There should also be the help and support from the Office of Academic
Integrity that we have recommended above.
The Committee recommends that faculty members report all incidents of cheating
to OAI, and that they consult with OAI on penalties. If a faculty member
chooses not to consult with OAI and a student later grieves the process, the
faculty member bears the burden of proving in any subsequent grievance process
that the penalty is appropriate. The concern here is to ensure consistency in
decisions and penalties, allowing for appropriate variations for different
kinds of offense (e.g., first-time plagiarism by a freshman should not be
treated the same as plagiarism by a doctoral student).
Classroom practices that discourage or prevent cheating are the faculty
member's
b. designing assignments that are unique to the class: personalize class
assignments, particular fieldwork projects, and essay topics to the point where
it is difficult to plagiarize for them. Assignments should not be general
enough to be taken from the Web or an encyclopedia
c. proctoring all exams, even if teaching assistants are present. Research
shows that the presence of the faculty member reduces cheating
d. using alternate or other special seating at exams
e. having students sign in or checking IDs for large-class exams
f. reminding students to sign the affirmation-of-honesty statement printed on
their blue books
h. making each student write something in class to a minimum length of about
300 words at least once or, better, more than once a term as a sample of his or
her characteristic way of reasoning and writing
i. defining cheating, especially plagiarism. Give examples
j. making time to discuss what can legitimately be drawn from the Web, how it
is to be cited, and where the documentation format is to be found; and
providing examples of appropriate and inappropriate use and citation
B. STUDENTS
Students have a responsibility not to cheat and to act with integrity
generally. They have the right to expect that instructors will provide guidance
on academic integrity and cheating, and will use classroom measures that
protect students who do not cheat from those who do or might.
Students have the due-process right to be informed in writing when they are
accused and of what as soon as the accusation is taken beyond professor-student
interaction. And they are entitled to information about the process.
Students must be responsible in particular for academic integrity within their
own realm. They should protect their own work from being drawn on without
acknowledgment by others. When in doubt, they should take responsibility for
asking what constitutes cheating or inappropriate sharing. They should also
report others if they are cheating. This is public citizenship. Students can
encourage others to maintain academic integrity, and not to cheat. Peer
pressure is powerful.
C. ADMINISTRATORS
The administration has a significant stake in the integrity of the institution,
and thus has the right to require preventive classroom practices. It can also
expect faculty and student cooperation with guidelines and processes to promote
academic integrity. The Committee strongly recommends that the administration
support funding for OAI staff and associated resources and activities.
The administration's contribution to promoting academic integrity might include
most if not all of the following:
b. preparing materials for admissions and orientation (including web-site
materials), for all students new to the University at any level, and for
courses such as English Composition and Writing-Intensive courses (which are
required of all undergraduate students)
c. providing resources to the faculty (e.g., Web search-engines)
d. providing funding for OAI and support for the advisory committee so it has
the resources to assume responsibility for the investigative and prosecutorial
function when allegations of cheating are made, so the faculty--who are often
unsuited to doing so and do not have the time to do so--are not obliged to
carry out this function, and so that OAI has resources to undertake prevention
and education efforts with both faculty and students
e. encouraging colleges to work with and support OAI
f. being firm, and standing behind the faculty and OAI
g. reinforcing faculty and student efforts to promote academic integrity
The administration can and should set expectations for all, repeat these
publicly and often, and establish rules and procedures for meeting them. It
should develop guidelines, processes, and procedures for enforcement that are
not onerous. It can support, praise, and reward faculty members who are
vigilant, responsible, and proactive about academic integrity. It must also
defend publicly and explicitly the due-process rights of students.
V. PENALTIES
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
In order to minimize cheating at the University, everyone--students, faculty,
staff, and administrators--must contribute to creating a culture in which
academic fraud is neither committed nor tolerated. The most important step in
doing this is to make cheating difficult and thus prevent it in the first
place. But, both as part of the prevention effort and in order to maintain
publicly our norms of integrity, there must be a system for exacting penalties
when cheating does occur. The three major desiderata are:
b. Penalties should be fair. This is always difficult to achieve. The basic
principle of fairness is "Treat like cases alike, different cases differently."
That is, two like students who have cheated in the same way, under the same
circumstances, should receive the same penalty. If one student has cheated and
another has not, only the one who cheated should be penalized. This principle
helps to define what will be fair, but in fact there is an infinite variety of
different kinds of cheating and of different personal circumstances under which
cheating occurs. What we recommend is a system in which, in broad outline, the
basic principle of fairness is followed but in which individual judgment of
each case determines the penalty within those bounds. And above all, we
recommend a system in which both the maintenance of the broad penalties, and
individual judgments within them, are done consistently across cases.
c. Penalties should allow students in all but the most egregious cases--and
certainly undergraduate first offenders--to recover after the penalty, be
rehabilitated, and go on to pursue their studies in a constructive way. The
University recognizes that while all cheating is an affront to its principles,
there is little to be gained by permanently tattooing the guilty: lesser
offenses ought to be dealt with i4. DISABILITIES ISSUES COMMITTEE The Disabilities Issues Committee recommends University policies,
procedures, and services concerning faculty/academic professionals, students,
and staff with disabilities.MembershipThe Disabilities Issues Committee shall be composed of at least 7
faculty/academic professional members, 2 students (at least one graduate and
one undergraduate), 2 civil service staff members, and ex officio
representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Faculty, academic
professional, and student members shall be nominated by the Committee on
Committees with the approval of the Senate. Civil service members shall be
appointed by the president in consultation with the Civil Service
Committee.Duties and Responsibilitiesa. To advise the president and administrative offices, including the
Disability Services Office and the University ADA Coordinator, on policies,
programs, and services for students and employees.b. To promote compliance with laws relating to students and staff with
disabilities.c. To review policies and practices in light of legal compliance
aspects, deployment of resources, and effectiveness in meeting the needs of the
University community, and to recommend changes.d. To inform the University community to the special concerns of its
members with disabilities and of the available resources.e. To bring concerns to the Senate, as appropriate.f. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or
policies as it deems appropriate.g. To submit an annual report to the Senate.6. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN COMMITTEEThe Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee was established
pursuant to and for the duration of the court decree in the case of Rajender
v. University of Minnesota. Upon expiration of the decree (January 1,
1991), the committee continues in accordance with the "Women Academic
Employees Policy Statement" of the Board of Regents.MembershipThe Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee shall be composed
of 7 faculty members, 2 members of the academic professional staff, and ex
officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. The committee
shall be selected to reflect the general interest of the University in the
pursuit of excellence in teaching and research as well as the special interests
of women. The faculty members shall be nominated by the Committee on
Committees with the approval of the Senate. The academic professional
staff members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees in consultation
with the chair of the Academic Staff Advisory Committee with the approval of
the Senate. Duties and Responsibilitiesa. To promote compliance with the "Women Academic Employees Policy
Statement" approved by the University Senate on April 19, 1990 and adopted
by the Board of Regents on July 13, 1990.b. To recommend policies that guarantee equal employment opportunity
for all women faculty and academic staff of the University.c. To propose approaches for assuring that the University has an active
affirmative action program for women in all of its academic units.d. To encourage active measures to expand and strengthen the diversity
of the academic community in accordance with the Regents' "Women Academic
Employees Policy Statement."e. To examine policies of the University to determine whether they
would have a disparate impact on women and make recommendations to the
University president or senior academic officers or to the University Senate if
they do.f. To work with the University's Equal Opportunity Officer to implement
the Regents' policy statement on women academic employees.g. To advise the University president and senior academic
officers.h. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or
policies as it deems appropriate.i. To submit an annual report to the Senate.struck-out; language to be added is
underlined).- Disabilities Issues--Office of the Executive Vice President and
Provost (one from the Disability Services Office and the University ADA
coordinator)- Equal Employment Opportunity for Women--Office of the Executive Vice
President and Provost (two representatives, including one from the Office of
Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action)
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
AND MOTION B WITHDRAWN
Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
Action by the University Senate struck-out; language to be added is
underlined).and
academic professional staff.and academic
professional staff, and to recommend improvements in the design and
implementation of faculty and academic professional personnel
policies, including such matters as tenure and promotion, salary and
benefits, faculty development, and hiring and retirement alternatives.to and
modifications, and interpretations, and implementation of
policies on of Faculty Tenure.and academic professional staff development.and academic
professionals (with the assistance of the Employee Benefits
Department) and suggest alternatives when appropriate.an independent consultant retained by
the Faculty Senate, and recommend appropriate changes.and
academic professional welfare including such matters as tenure
and promotion, salary and benefits, and faculty and academic professional staff
development. g h. To recommend to the Faculty Consultative
Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.h i. To submit an annual report to the Faculty
Senate.
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Action by the University Senate
Senate Consultative Committee
385 Law Center
Tom Clayton, Chair
Special Senate Committee on
Student Academic Integrity
on Student Academic Integrity
(Part II: Academic Integrity)