The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
RESOLUTION PASSED
==================
BE IT RESOLVED, That the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate ratifies the election of
President-Elect on the basis of the following ballot.
BALLOT
PRESIDENT-ELECT
Please vote for ONE individual to serve as the President-Elect of the
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate for 1997-98.
Maynard Perkins, Associate Professor
General Studies/Northwest Campus
*** Madeline Schatz, Professor
Music
*** President-Elect
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to add the following to the list for
Transfer of Credit on page 11 of the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ catalog:
10. Any student who has completed a bachelor's degree from an
accredited institution will be considered to have completed
the equivalent of the baccalaureate core when officially
accepted to an undergraduate degree program at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997
RATIONALE: This motion addresses baccalaureate CORE
courses only. The motion accepts students'
baccalaureate degrees as meeting the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ baccalaureate
core requirement. The student could be re-enrolling into
the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ system after having completed a baccalaureate
degree at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ in the past (when possibly the core
requirement was different), or the student could be
enrolling from another institution. Because of the core
transfer policy there are actually few courses that
students would need to take and this policy, in the
majority of cases, would allow a core transfer without
a course by course evaluation.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
Departments and programs will annually review courses not offered in
the previous five-year period and consider if they should be deleted
from the printed catalog. A list of courses to be deleted will be
forwarded to the Provost with the request to have the courses removed
from the catalog.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: This motion responds to the actions of the
provost in deleting courses from the University catalog.
The motion reconfirms that changes to the catalog made
by administration affecting any academic concerns
should only be implemented after appropriate faculty
deliberation.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to clarify walk through requirements for
graduate students as follows:
To meet the definition of having "essentially completed all degree
requirements" (current policy) to "walk through" graduation
ceremonies, a student must have meet the following requirements:
a. successfully completed all required tests, course work and
thesis/project defense; and
b. submitted to the Graduate School by the date set for filing a
thesis/dissertation in Spring Semester, a memorandum signed by the
student and the major advisor certifying that the student is essentially
completed the graduate degree, and that all required signatures will be
obtained and the thesis, project or dissertation filed by the last day of
instruction. If the student is a Ph.D. candidate, the major advisor or
designated committee member must also agree to participate in the
graduation ceremonies; and
c. filed a copy of the required project/thesis/dissertation with the
Graduate School with all required signatures, by the last day of
instruction in Spring Semester; and
d. for Ph.D. candidates, filed a 50 word abstract of the dissertation
research along with the signed dissertation.
NOTE: Individuals who "walk through" graduation ceremonies will
NOT be listed in the graduation program. These students
names, and if Ph.D. recipients, descriptions of dissertation
research, will appear in the program of the academic year in
which the Degree is formally granted.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: Dana Thomas requested the Committee
review the current policy and clarify the meaning of
"essentially complete". The above definition ensures
that the student has "essentially completed" the degree
requirements and should be allowed to "walk through"
the ceremony.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the minimum requirements
for Master's Degrees shall be as follows:
For all Master's Degree Programs, the following must be met:
a. Submit a Graduate Study Plan (GSP) and an Appointment of
Committee Form to the Graduate School by the end of the second
semester in attendance.
b. Be registered for at least 6 credits per year (fall, spring, and
summer combined), or have an approved leave of absence form on file.
c. Submit an Advancement to Candidacy form to the Graduate School.
Once submitted, this form supplants the GSP and serves to formally
establish specific degree requirements.
d. Submit an application for graduation and be registered for at
least 3 graduate credits in the semester in which the degree is to be
awarded; and
e. Complete all degree requirements within the 7-year time limit
allowed.
Furthermore, the following additional requirements are the minimum
requirements for Master's Degrees:
For a Master's of Science or Master's of Arts Degree - with thesis
Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work
including at least 6 credits of thesis (699). (No more than 12
thesis/research (699/698) credits may be counted towards the
minimum degree credits).
At least 24 credits must be at the 600 or above, except for a
Master's of Arts in Music, which must have at least 21 credits at the
600 level or above.
Pass a written and/or oral comprehensive exam (may be combined
with the thesis defense.
Publicly present and defend thesis.
Submit a completed and signed thesis defense form to the
Graduate School.
Archive thesis in ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Library.
Master's of Science or Master's of Arts Degree - with project
Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work
including at least 6 credits of project work (698). (No more than 6
research (698) credits may be counted towards the minimum degree
credits.)
At least 24 credits must be at the 600 level or above, except for
a Master's of Arts in Music, which must have at least 21 credits at the
600 level or above.
Pass a written and/or oral comprehensive exam (may be combined
with the project defense.)
Publicly present and defend project.
Submit a completed and signed project defense form to the
Graduate School.
Archive project in ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Library.
For a Professional Master's Degree (i.e. Master's of Business
Administration, Education, etc.)
Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work
(research or thesis credits NOT included).
At least 24 credits must be at the 600 level or above (research
or thesis credits NOT included).
Successful completion of a comprehensive exam or capstone
course that includes demonstration of the ability to synthesize
information in the field at a level appropriate for a Master's degree.
Note on Implementation of Motion: It is the understanding of the
Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee that changes to existing
programs degree requirements or the name of the degree which may be
necessitated by this policy, if implemented, will need final approval of
the Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee, but does not constitute a
new degree offering, and will not need approval by the Board of
Regents.
No minimum presented herein prohibits programs from requiring
additional work. The adjustments that have been made from existing
programs include the requirement for the non-thesis project to be
documented and in some manner archived in the Library (i.e. slides,
recording, report.)
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1998
RATIONALE: Currently there is great disparity in the
administration of Master's degrees using a thesis
or non-thesis option. In addition, there is an increasing
movement towards Professional Master's Degrees
which require only course work. To ensure the quality
and workload for a degree is comparable for the
thesis, project option, and professional (non-thesis
and non-project) minimum must be set and applied
across all degrees.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (16 yeas, 8 nays)
==========================
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to amend the resolution submitted by the
Faculty Alliance regarding "upon recommendation of the faculty" to
include the following:
WHEREAS, The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Fairbanks, the University
of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Anchorage, and the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Southeast are each separately accredited and are from a
student perspective separate universities,
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The purpose here is to justify inserting
the individual MAU after the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
on dipolmas. The current wording, "University of
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ," comes from the time when there was only
one University and that was located in Fairbanks.
For two decades, now, we have had three universities
forming one statewide system, and that should be
recognized on diplomas and at graduation.
***
RESOLUTION
===========
WHEREAS, The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Alliance gains it
authority by policy 03.01.01 of the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Board of Regents, and
WHEREAS, The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Alliance provides
official representation for the faculty of the University
of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ in matters which affect the general welfare of
the University and its educational purposes; and
WHEREAS, The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Alliance provides
consultation to the President of the University and the
Board of Regents on academic matters; and
WHEREAS, The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Alliance
recognizes the faculty of the individual academic major
administrative units as having the primary responsibility
and authority for recommending the establishment of
degree requirements; implementing the degree
requirements; establishing the curriculum, the subject
matter and the methods for instruction; determining
when established degree requirements are met; and
WHEREAS, The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Alliance has
advisory and coordinating role in academic affairs of the
individual academic major administrative units; and
WHEREAS, The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Fairbanks, the University
of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Anchorage, and the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Southeast are each separately accredited and are from a
student perspective separate universities; now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Board of Regents shall have included at all University of
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ graduations and in all diplomas the phrase ". . .
and upon the recommendation of the Faculty of the
University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ . . . ." with the insertion of the
appropriate major academic unit's name.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The Faculty Senate moves to approve the disbanding of the Academic
Computer Users Committee and let this function be moved to the
Provost's Office.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The Academic Computer Users Committee
handles academic issues and should fall under the
Faculty Senate or the Provost who is the chief academic
officer. The Committee also feels that it would be more
effective if it reported directly to the Provost.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous)
==========================
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the following prerequisite for
all core ethics courses in the Perspective on the Human Condition:
"Junior standing; completion of two courses in the Perspectives on the
Human Condition recommended but not required."
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997
RATIONALE: Upon consensus among Political Science,
Philosophy, Natural Resources Management, and
Communication, Junior Standing will be the prerequisite
for all the ethics courses. Requiring the same
prerequisite will enable students to have equal access
to all these courses.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (1 nay)
==============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to amend the Department Head Policy to
clarify department affiliated faculty members' eligible to vote for
department head as follows:
A full-time faculty member currently holding academic rank is
affiliated with a department if:
1) the head of that department evaluates the faculty member or;
2) the head of the department signs the faculty member's
workload agreement.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The motion to amend the policy defining the
role and duties of the department head, which also
establishes the procedures for the election of
department heads at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ (as passed by the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty
Senate at its Meeting #21 [October 15, 1990] and #23
[December 17, 1990] and modified by the Chancellor) is
intended to clarify Section III. B. Eligibility to Vote.
***
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #71 on
April 14, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate forwards to the Faculty Alliance its concerns
and recommendations regarding proposed changes to Regents' Policies
and Regulations on Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Harassment
as follow:
1) the proposed policies and regulations are poorly organized. The
regulations for general harassment seem to have been simply inserted
into the regulations on Sexual Harassment (R04.06.09 B). Given the
organization of University Regulations, the regulations on general
harassment and discrimination should be contained in R04.06.09 B; an
existing section in University regulations which is titled Harassment
and Discrimination. The blending of sexual harassment regulations and
the regulations for general harassment and discrimination is contrary
to the organization of University Regulations and adds confusion to the
distinct issues.
2) The provisions regarding third party sexual harassment (R04.06.09
B.7) are redundant since harassment of an individual resulting from a
relationship with a third party would already constitute harassment
under P04.06.09 A. (Harassment and Discrimination). Also, in the
current form, the third party sexual harassment provision as a special
form of sexual harassment has the potential to violate an individual's
freedom to association.
3) The language in the proposed regulations allowing anonymous
complaints (R04.06.09 B. 7) on the surface seems to be benign in that a
formal investigation of charges and possible disciplinary actions would
only occur if anonymous complainant names his/her self. However, the
regulation also states that the acceptability of anonymous complaints
depends on the number of or persuasiveness of anonymous complaints.
Hence, if enough "poison pen" complaints are made or if they are
sufficiently well written, a formal investigation my occur. This is
completely unacceptable. This clause simply opens the way for
institutionalized character assassination. While this clause seems to
afford protection from formal disciplinary action due simply to
anonymous complaints, it does not prevent informal actions. For
example, repeated or persuasive anonymous complaints may result in
the perception on the part of peers or supervisors that an individual
acts unprofessionally, thus affecting periodic evaluations or chances
for tenure or promotion.
4) In R04.06.09 B. 2. h (Definition of Harassment Review) it appears
that the review will typically be conducted by a single individual. This
would give a single individual excessive power. An investigatory
committee of three (or more) individuals should be constituted to
investigate an alleged violation of harassment or discrimination
policies.
5) Policy P04.04.09 A. 1. (a) through (d) (Examples of Harassment)
outlines examples of harassment. Given these examples, policy seems
to state that the situations, if they occur, are sufficient to constitute
harassment. The policy should be reworded to state that the examples
listed may be lead to harassment and that the determination that
harassment has occurred is made by examining the total context of the
situation. In addition, the many examples are vague and potentially
open the door to limiting academic freedom. For example, examining
supposedly "sexually charged literature" may restrict an English
professor's academic freedom. Or, prohibiting supposedly "suggestive
objects" may restrict an anthropology professor's academic freedom.
Lastly in a separate issue, with respect to examples of discrimination,
modifiers need to be added such as the "reasonable accommodation"
language of the American's with Disabilities Act.
6) Since it is frequently the case that an individual who violates this
policy does so out of ignorance, policy and regulations should stress
this. Hence, with respect to disciplinary actions, more emphasis needs
to be placed upon the education role that the harassment policy can
fulfill.
7) Throughout the proposed policy there is language which is
prejudicial to the accused which seems to imply "guilty until proven
innocent". For example in R04.06.09 B. 4., the accused is referred to as
the "aggressor". In order to remove some of the prejudicial language
when referring to an individual accused of harassment or
discrimination, the definition of a "respondent" should be added to
R04.06.09 B. 2. (Definitions) where "Respondent" should be defined as an
individual accused of violating Regents' Policies and Regulations
regarding harassment or discrimination.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The motion responds to a formal request from
Faculty Alliance to ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate regarding input
on the proposed changes in Board of Regents' Policies
and Regulations on Discrimination, Harassment and
Sexual Harassment. The poorly written document
received from BOR was scrutinized by the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ FASAC
in response to that request.
UA