69-20,854

FEDORE, Robert Ryvan, 1926AN EVALUATION OF THE REPORT ON THE
"ACADEMIC FREEDOM FOR STUDENTS AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY".
Michigan State U niversity, Ph.D ., 1969
Education, adm inistration
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

AN E V A L U A T I O N OF THE REPORT ON THE
"ACADEMIC F R E E D O M FO R STUDENTS AT
M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVER SIT Y"

By

Robert Ryvan Fedore

A THE SI S

Su bm i t t e d to
M i c h i g a n State Univer sit y
par tia l fu lf il lm ent of the re qu ir em ents
for the degree of

D O C T O R OF PHILOSOPHY

D ep ar tm ent of A d m i nist ra ti on
and Hig her Ed uca tion

1969

AB STR ACT

AN E V A L U A T I O N OF T H E REPO RT ON THE " A C A D E M I C F R E E D O M
FOR ST UDE NTS AT M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y "

By

Robert Ryv an Fedore

Problem
The pur pose s of this
opinions of students,
istrators wi th respect
pri nc ipl es

study were

student

(a) to com par e the

leaders,

fac ulty a n d a d m i n ­

to the de sir abil it y

or st ate me nts

of se l e c t e d

con ta in ed in the Report

"Adademic F r e e d o m for Students at M i c h i g a n
and

(b) to compare

opinions

of those

regard to the degree which practices
m o ved closer to these principles.

the Report

in the

U n i v e r s i t y have

In a d d i t i o n the

study

of the R e por t

and p ro cedu re s

leading up to its

State Univ er si ty "

four gro ups w i t h

pr esents a b r i e f hi sto r i c a l developm ent
cluding the consid era tions

on

that we n t

in­

into

final adoption.

Methods and Proced ures
A ra nd o m sample
leaders,

of four groups

faculty and adm inistrat ors )

M ic hi ga n State

Uni ve rs ity were

A questionnaire
guide lin es

sel e ct ed

(students,

student

associated with

chosen for the study.

con si stin g of forty p r i n c i p l e s

from the Report on the

"Academic

or

Freedom for Students

at M i c h i g a n

to one h u n d r e d i n d i v i du al s
groups.

State U ni vers it y" was

sent

in eac h of the four sample

A total of 332 or 8 3 % of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were

returned.
Chi Square,

a non-parametric

was used for a n a l y z i n g the data.
dence was uted to de te r m i n e the
differences.

C o mmen ts

s t a t i st ic al p roced ur e
The

.05 level of c o n f i ­

level of signif ica nt

soli c i t e d to each pr in c i p l e were

edit ed and reported.

Findings
An aly sis

of the

forty st at e m e n t s r e v e a l e d that in

general the g u i d e l i n e s put
a cc ep te d by the

various

forth in the Report were well

seg ments m a k i n g up the Un iv er s i t y

community.
The two areas most pro ne to di s a g r e e m e n t were

centered

around those rights p e r t a i n i n g to c l a s s r o o m and aca demic
freedoms and student

publications

It was over these same areas
siderable

di sa g r e e m e n t

Report pri o r to its

and the ir distribution.

of student rights that

e x i s t e d in the f or mula ti on

had chan ged as a result of the

but

Many m e m b e r s

simp ly were

to w h ic h pra ctic es

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report
of the U n i v e r s i t y

that a n u mbe r of the gui de l i n e s ha d
into prac tic es

of the

final ad o p t i o n by the Uni versity,

Co n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the extent

could not be made.

con­

long been

i m p l e mente d

i m pl ie d and not made

explicit until the a d o p t i o n of the Report.

felt

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The a u t h o r e x p r e s s e s his

sincere a p p r e c i a t i o n to the

mem ber s of his G u i d a n c e C om mi tt ee,
Dr.

Leland W. D e a n and Dr.

given dur ing this
ex tended to Dr.

study.

Dr.

James B. McKee for as sist an ce
A s p ec ia l note of gra ti tud e

E l d o n R. No n n a m a k e r ,

Guidance Com mi tt ee , w h o s e

Walt er P. Johnson,

Cha i r m a n of the

encouragement

inspired the a u t h o r t h r o u g h o u t

and u n d e r s t a n d i n g

the study.

^ f p p r e c i a t i o n is also e x p r e s s e d to Dr.
and the many pe r s o n s

is

John C. Howe ll

at M i c h i g a n State wit ho ut whose

guidance and c o o p e r a t i o n this

study wou ld not have be en

possible.
Above all,

the dee pes t

grat i t u d e

is e x p r e s s e d to my

wife and c h i l d r e n who have e n d u r e d the aut h or these many
years

as hus b an d,

fat h er and student.

ii

TAB LE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

...........................................

ii

LI ST OF T A B L E S ...........................................

v

Ch a p t e r
I.

THE P R O B L E M ....................................
I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................
Purpose of the S t u d y .....................
Sta te men t of the P r obl em ..................
D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s .........................
Li m i t at io ns of the S t u d y ..................
Pro ce dur es for the S t u d y ..................
O r g a n i z a t i o n of the S t u d y ..................

II.

III.

H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF AC A D E M I C F R E E D O M
IN TH E U. S. AND R E V I E W OF THE L I T E R A T U R E

1
7
8
9
10
10
12

.

14

I nt r o d u c t i o n ................................
H i s t o r i c a l D e v e l o p m e n t .....................
R e l a t e d Lite ra tu re and Research.
. . .
S u m m a r y .......................................

14
14
24
28

H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF T H E R E POR T
ON THE
"ACADEMIC F R EE DO M FOR STU DE NTS AT M I C H I G A N
STAT E U N I V E R S I T Y " ............................

31

I nt ro du ctio n . . . . . ... ..............
The Co mm i t t e d G e n e r a t i o n ..................
Advent of the F r e e d o m R e p o r t ..............
S u m m a r y ......................... ...
IV.

1

D E S I G N AND METHODOLOGY.

.

..............

............................
I nt r o d u c t i o n
D e s c r i p t i o n of the Po pul a t i o n and
Sel ec tio n of the S a m p l e ..................
P roc edures Used in D e v e l o p i n g the
Instrument and Obta i n i n g the Data
.
.
A n a l y z i n g the D a t a .........................
S u m m a r y .......................................

iii

31
31
37
59
6l
6l
6l
63
65
66

Chapter
V.

VI.

Page
A N AL YS IS OF THE D A T A ..........................

67

I n t r o du ct ion ................................
Access to the R e p o r t ..............
68
69
A n a l y s i s ............................
Ac a d e m i c and C l a s s r o o m ..........
69
Student R e c o r d s .................
84
Re gula ti on s, Rules and Student Conduct
F r e e d o m of E xp ressi on ..................
S u m m a r y ..................................145

67

SUMMARY,

F IN DI NGS AND CON CLU SI ON S

.

.

.

.

The P r o b l e m .......................... 147
Des ign of the S t u d y ................... 148
D e s i r a b i l i t y of the Pr in cip les . . . .
A c ade mi c and C l a s s r o o m ............ 149
Student Records .........................
Regulati on s, Rules and Student Conduct
F r e e d o m of Exp re s s i o n ..................
Change in P r a c t i c e s ................... 152
Ac a d e m i c and C l a s s r o o m ............ 152
Student Records .
Reg ul ati on s, Rules and Student Conduct
F r e e d o m of E xpre ss io n ..................
C o n c l u s i o n s .......................... 155
Im plic at io ns for F u r t h e r Study . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A PP ENDICE S.

............................
.

.

.

.

.

147

149
149
150
150

153
153
154
158
160

. . .

iv

102
128

165

L I S T OP TAB LE S

Table

Page

1.

Re spo nses to the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...................

66

2.

Resp on ses to the questio ns as to w h e t h e r the
respo nde nt ha d access to the Repor t and w h e t h e r
he had read the R e p o r t .........................

68

The student is free to take r e a s o n e d e x c e p t i o n
to da ta and views offe re d in the cl assr o o m , and
to reserve ju d g m e n t about m a t t e r s of opinion,
w i tho ut fear of p e n a l t y .........................

70

The student is p r o t e c t e d against i m p r o p e r d i s ­
closure of i n f o r m a t i o n c oncer ni ng his grades,
views, beliefs, p o l i t i c a l a ss oc i a t i o n s , health,
or character w h i c h an instru ctor acq u i r e s in
the course of his p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h
the s t u d e n t ........................................

72

3.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

The student re c e i v e s acc urate an d c l e a r l y
stated in for mat ion w h i c h ena ble s h i m to d e t e r ­
min e his own a c a d e m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the
Un ive rsity and any special c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h
a p p l y ..............................................

7^

Th e student r e c e i v e s accurate and clea rl y
stated inform at ion wh i c h enables h i m to d e t e r ­
mi n e the general req ui rem en ts for e s t a b l i s h i n g
and m a i n t a i n i n g an acc ep tabl e a c ad em ic s t a n d ­
ing ..................................................

76

Procedures are e s t a b li shed for h e a r i n g c o m ­
plaints to r e c o n c i l e a right of the faculty
and the right of a s t u d e n t ......................

78

M em be rs hip is p r o v i d e d for s t ud ents on r e g u l a r
de par tmental and college c om mitt ee s in w h i c h
p ro bl em s are d i s c u s s e d and p o l i c i e s formulated.

80

Department an d col lege s have c l ea rl y de f i n e d
channels for the receipt and c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
student complaints con ce rni ng the qu a l i t y of
i n s t r u c t i o n .......................................

83

v

Table

10.

11.

Page

All policies and p r a c t i c e s c o n c e r n i n g records
are based on respect f o r the p r i v a c y of the
Individual student . . . . . . . . .

85

There Is a d e m o n s t r a b l e need for a.ll records
r e t a i n e d w h i c h is r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e d to the
basic necessities and p u r p o s e s of the inst itu87

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Re co rds of a student's r e l i g i o u s or p o l it ic al
bel ie fs are not r e t a i n e d wi t h o u t his kno wl edge
.....................
or consent
. . . .

88

A student has the
cial transcr ip t of

90

right to i n sp ec t the o f f i ­
his o w n a c a d e m i c reco rd

A student has the right to i n sp ec t reports and
evaluations of his con duct, e x c e p t letters of
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and s i m i l a r ev a l u a t i o n s whi c h
are ne ces sa ri ly p r e p a r e d on a c on fi de ntial
basis
.............. ...

92

Evalua tio ns of stu den ts are m a d e only by p e r ­
sons qua l i f i e d to make that e v a l u a t i o n

93

All persons han dlin g c o n f i d e n t i a l reco rds are
instruc ted co nc er n i n g th e c o n f i d e n t i a l nature
of such info rm atio n and c o n c e r n i n g their
res pon si bi litie s r e g a r d i n g it
. . . . .

95

No one outside the f a cu lt y or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
staff has access to the r e c o r d of a student's
offenses against U n i v e r s i t y r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h ­
out the express p e r m i s s i o n o f the student in
writing
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

Transc rip ts of a ca d e m i c r e c o r d c o ntai n only
information about the a c a d e m i c status of the
student
................
. . . . . . .
Membership lists of s t ud ent or g an iz at ions,
especially those r e l a t e d to m a t t e r s of a
po lit ical belief, or action, are not r e t a i n e d
The enforce men t of the s t ud en ts duties to the
larg er society is left to leg al and Judi cial
aut horities duly established for the purpose

vi

.

99

.

101

103

Table

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Page

Only wh e r e the Insti tu ti on 's in ter ests as
an ac ademic community are distinct and
clearly i n v o l v e d is the spec ia l authori ty of
the I n s t i t u t i o n asserted in a d ditio n to
penaltie s p r e s c r i b e d by civ i l author iti es

104

Students p a r t i c i p a t e to the m a x i m u m extent
feasible in fo rm ul a t i n g and re v i s i n g re gu l a ­
..............
tions g o v e r n i n g student conduct.

106

All r e g u l a t i o n s g o v e r n i n g stud ent conduct are
mad e public in an ap p r o p r i a t e m a nn er .

108

Re gul ati ons r e l a t i n g to the co mm u n i c a t i o n of
ideas e n c o u r a g e the c o m p e t i t i o n of ideas

110

There is a d e m o n s t r a b l e n e e d for each r e g ul a­
tion w h i c h is r ea so na bly r e l a t e d to the basic
pu rpo ses and n e c e s sitie s of the Uni ve rsit y .

112

Procedu res an d penalties for the v io la ti on
of re g u l a t i o n s are d e s i g n e d for guid anc e or
co rrection of beh avio r r a t he r than for
re t r i b u t i o n
. . .
.............................

114

All r e g u l a t i o n s seek the best pos si bl e
r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s of m a x i m u m
freedom and nece s s a r y o r d e r . . . . . . .

116

Clearly d e f i n e d channels an d proced ur es exist
for the a p p e a l and revie w of the finding of
guilt in an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of a r eg ul at ion

.

118

Clearly d e f i n e d channels and proc e d u r e s exist
for the appe al and rev iew of the r e a s o n a b l e ­
ness, und er the circumstances, of the penalty
imposed for a specific v i o l a t i o n
.

119

Clearly d e f i n e d channels and proced ure s
exist for the appeal and r e v i e w of the sub­
stance of a r e g u l a t i o n or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
d e cis io n
...........................................

121

Every r e g u l a t i o n spe cif ies to w h o m it applies
and w h e t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for compliance
lies wi th individua ls, grou ps or both

123

vii

Table

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Page

Any student a c c u s e d of v iolat in g a regulat ion
has the right to a p p e a r before one or more
m e m b e r s of a duly c o n s t i t u t e d judicial bo dy

124

Prem ises o cc up ied by students and the p e r ­
sonal po s s e s s i o n s of students are not
se a r c h e d unless ap p r o p r i a t e au th oriz at io n
................................
has be e n ob t a i n e d

126

Faculty, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and students who are
not staff mem be rs do not exercise any powers
of veto or c en so rs hip over news or editorial
..............
co nte nt in the student n ew sp aper

129

Students have m a x i m u m fre e do m to express
opinions and c o m m u ni cate ideas by writing,
p u b l i s h i n g and d i s t r i b u t i n g mat eri als

131

The U n iv er si ty does not authori ze student
publications . . . . .
.....................

133

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for e d it oria l or other content,
finance and d i s t r i b u t i o n lies wit h the s p o n s o r ­
ing agency group, or o r g a n i z a t i o n ..............

135

The p r i v i l e g e of d i s t r i b u t i o n wh i c h is
a c c o r d e d to any free student pu bli cati on is
equ al ly acc o r d e d to all
. . . . . . . .

137

The U n i v e r s i t y neither au thor ize s nor prohibits
the s o l i c i t a t i o n of ad v e r t i s i n g by any student
publication
. . . . . .
..................

138

S t ude nt s and student o r g a n iza ti on s are free to
ex a m i n e and to discuss all questions of i n t e r ­
est to them, and to express opinions publicly
and p r i v a t e l y
. . . .
.....................

140

Stud en ts are a l lo we d to invite and to he a r any
p e r s o n of their own c hoosi ng
. . . . . .

142

P ro ce dures re q u i r e d be fo r e a guest spe aker is
i n v i t e d to a p p e a r on campus are designed only
to insure that there is orderly sch ed uling of
facilities and ade qu ate pr e p a r a t i o n for the
event
..............................................

144

viii

CHA PTER I

THE P R O B L E M

Introduction
The quest by stu den ts

for a greater voice and a h i gh er

degree of f r e e d o m In their respect ive academic
an ex pa n d i n g mov emen t.
educa ti on al nature,

co mmu ni ti es

is

Such issues, both of a social and

have bro ugh t

about d i s r u ption s r a n gi ng

from the "Free Spe ec h M o v e m e n t ” at Berkeley in 1964-65 to
the violent u p r i s i n g s
San F r an ci sco State

at C o l u m b i a Univers ity in 1968 and at

College

in 1969.

Civil d i s o b e di en ce

tactics, born e and r e fi ned from the civil rights movement,
have been ch aract e r i s t i c
authority.

of student confr on tat ions with

S p e a k i n g of the revolt

Fortas bel ie ves

that

it may

the ed ucati on al

and livi ng rules

it p r esent s

of outl ook amon g our
It

of increased m at urit y in
of our colleges.

In any

a challenge to the older g en erat io n as

well as to y o u t h to r e c o n s i d e r the goals
its values,

of

and this may be produc tive of much good.

may bring about the dev el op me nt

event,

Justice

forecast the de vel opme nt

greater ma t u r i t y and i n d e p enden ce
y o u n g people,

of youth today,

of our soc iet y and

and urg entl y to reappraise the d i s t r i b u t i o n of

function and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y amo ng the generations.

1

He says:

I kno w of no legal p r i n c i p l e w h ic h pro tects students
on campus from the c o n s e qu ence s of activit ies which
wou ld be vio la ti ons of law if un de rt a k e n elsewhere.
This is the law; but we are now c o n f r o n t e d wi t h a
p r o b l e m whi ch is not solv ed by a m e c h a n i c a l a p p l i c a ­
tion of the cri mina l law:
the p r o b l e m of r e a d j u s t i n g
campus life to the ne w at titude s an d demands, and of
coping with the d i s a f f e c t i o n s w h i c h afflict so many
s t u d e n t s .1
In some cases the t e nd en cy
to po la rize

students,

for issues and conditions

fac ul ty and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n into c o m ­

pe ti ng Interest groups has p r e v e n t e d a legitimate

solution

to problems whi ch could be r e s o l v e d t h ro ug h r e a s o n and trust.
Student protest w h ic h disr up ts
an academic

or even threatens

community is b e c o m i n g more and more prevalent.

Colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s w h i c h felt that
action was

to des t ro y

such d e m a n d i n g

simply out of the q ue st io n on thei r res pe ct iv e

campuses are now faced wi t h the p r o p o s i t i o n of w o r k i n g out
solutions

to these c o n t r o v e r s i a l

issues in a m a n n e r whi c h

includes p a r t i c i p a t i o n by the total aca de mi c
urgent need to make a serious effort

community.

to manage

culties is r ec og ni zed by Kad is h in the

The

such d i f f i ­

following:

The rights of stu dents or faculty are not objects
to be di sc o v e r e d but c o n s t ruct io ns to be instituted,
pro pos als for the conduct of affairs to be ma d e good.
. . . student, faculty, ad min is tr at ion, and community
at large each have specific interests; these interests,
while they may of t e n over la p or r ei nf or ce one another,
are not, despite the rh e t o r i c of the "University" and
its noble functions, iden t i c a l or n ec es sa rily com­
patible . . . c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be given to the
various interests of each of the groups wh i c h make
up the Institution, and i n c l u d i n g the interest of

1Abe Portas, C o n c e r n i n g Dissent and Civil Di so b e d i e n c e
(New York:
Signet Books, l^bti), pp. 47-^9.

ea ch group to announce and def end its ow n
interes ts as it sees t h e m . 2
The see ki ng of freedom and righ ts by students,
interest group,
of student

has been di r e c t e d ini ti al ly at those aspects

life outside the c l a s s r o o m such as dress r e g u l a ­

tions, mor a l codes,
right

to dis cus s

Student

as an

student records, w o m e n ’s hours an d the

contr ove rsial issues.

However,

sinc e the

Power Conference h e l d at the U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e s o t a

in the fall of 1967,

there has been a de ma n d for g r e a t e r

inv ol vem en t on the part of students in the acad em ic
ance of in sti tut ions
freedom,

of h i g h e r education.

govern­

The sea rc h for

o ri ginal ly dir e ct ed at the extr a c u r r i c u l a r aspects

of coll ege life,
cur riculum,

is now r e a c h i n g out into such areas

g r ading system,

as the

eval ua t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n and

even tenu re of faculty.
As Pra nke l points out,
and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

any d i s c u s s i o n of the righ ts

of faculty,

is of lim ited value unless
and tone of the env ironment

students a n d a d m i ni st ra tors

at tentio n is pai d to the
in w h i c h these rights

The d ev el opmen t

cha rac ter

and r e s p o n ­

sibili tie s

operate.

of right s and r e s p o n ­

sibilit ies

of both students and facu lty in an e d u c a ti on al

i n s t i t u t i o n must be a product of the faculty,
and the students.

If the u n i v e r s i t y

administration

fails to grant

change in the aut ho ri ty a n d status relat io ns hi p,

any

t h e n change

may be forced up on the uni ve rsit y thro ugh r e b e l l i o n and

2

Mo r t i m e r R. Kadish, "Nature of the Pro bl em ," in F r e e ­
dom and Order in the U n i v e r s i t y , ed. by Sam uel Gorovit z
( C l e v e l a n d : W e s t e r n Reserve U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1967), pp.

167- 1 7 0 .

protest.

On the other hand,

token freedoms,

If the u n i v e r s i t y grants but

it may only create

cause for c o n f r o n t a t i o n .

fur the r mis tr us t

and

The r e c o g n i t i o n of such c o n s e ­

quences may enable a u ni ve r s i t y to e s t a b l i s h the p r o c e d u r e s
and pr oces ses for ef fec tiv ely d e al in g w i t h areas of p o tential controversy.
Speaking of such processes
has the

and pr o c e d u r e s ,

Culpepper

following to say:

It Is important that each of che m a i n const it ue nt s
of high er ed uc a t i o n recogni ze that all have major
roles to play and that eac h should r e s p e c t the
interests of the other.
Teamwor k, e x c h a n g e of
information, u n d e r s t a n d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r e c o g n i ­
tion of rights, and knowledge of dut ies and r e s p o n ­
sibilities of the other co n s t i t u e n t s wil l enable
all to contribute most e f f e c t i v e l y to the o p e r a t i o n
of the inst it uti on.^
Haro ld Taylor calls to our a t t e n t i o n an i n t e r e s t i n g
aspect

of such de m o c r a t i c a l l y

administered educational

institutions:
To put the mat te r broadly, the u l ti ma te form of
radi cal democracy in social o r g a n i z a t i o n or in
edu ca ti on is eith er the a n a r c h y of a c c e p t i n g no
aut hor ity and thus d e l i b e r a t e l y c u l t i v a t i n g the
dis or der of lalssez faire, or it is a consensus
re s t i n g upon the unanimous judgment of the c o m ­
munity, thus en fo r c i n g a new, and in some ways, a
13

Charles Frankel, "Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in the
S tu de nt -Co llege R e l a t i o n s h i p , " in The C o l l e g e and the S t u ­
dent , ed. by Lawrence E. Dennis and J o s e p h F. Kau ff ma n
(Washington, D.C.:
American C o uncil on Ed ucat io n, 1 9 6 7 ),
pp. 232-251.
4
J. Broward Culpepper, "All Have M a j o r Roles to Play,
in Wh os e Goals for American H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n ? ed. by
Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin B. T. Lee (Washington, D.C.:
Am e r i c a n Council on Education, 1968), pp. 133-1?0.

more unpleasant kind of a uth or it y than that which
the liberals have sought to o v e r t h r o w . 5
As argued by Ed wa r d
Student

Assoc iation,

Schwartz,

processes

answer in and of the mselves.
guarantees of individual
insufficient

President

and pr oc e d u r e s are not

the

Sch wa rt z points out that

f r ee dom and po li t i c a l order are

and that men may desire an e x p a n d i n g r e l a t i o n ­

ship be tw een one another,

a sense of communi ty w i t h i n their

environment w h i c h t r a n s c e n d s qu es tion s
The report on the
Mich ig an Univer si ty ,"
a large university,
acter,

of the National

of f r ee do m and order.^

"Academic F r e e d o m for Stu dents

is a document whi ch dem o n s t r a t e s

co n s i d e r i n g its own i n s t itu ti on al

at
how
cha r­

p r o p o s e d to re co g n i z e and deal with these exp an di ng

relationships
government.
relationship,

and in part

to emb ar k upon a form of community

The crux of the Report

rests

in the

fiduciary

which is best ex pr e s s e d in the last para g r a p h

of the f orewor d to the

Report:

The real si gnificance of this document, as we believe,
is not that students have a c q u i r e d rights, but that
they have explicitly be e n made party to our social
trust.
The respon s i b i l i t y whic h lies upon the
ad mi ni s t r a t i o n and faculty continues.
They rema in
guardians of the university, char ged wi t h p r e s e r v i n g

c
Harold Taylor, "Fr eedom and Au th o r i t y on the Campus,"
in The A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e , ed. by Nevitt Sanford (New York:
Wiley and Sons , 19 6 6 ), pp. 77^-775.
^Edward Schwartz, "Comment:
Legal A s pec ts of StudentInstitutional Re lati on sh ip s," Denver Law Journal, Vol. 45,
No. 4 (1963), pp. 525-532.

in the g e n iu s of sc h o l a r s h i p and the conditions
of i n q u i r y which society has entruste d to their
c a r e ,7
Afte r exte n s i v e study,
w i t h students,

i n v e s t i g a t i o n and discussio ns

adm in i s t r a t o r s

and faculty the report

"Academic F r e e d o m for Stu de nt s
was p r ep ared by the Faculty

at Mic hi ga n State Un iv er sity "

Com mi tt ee

on Student Affairs.

The Report was revi ew ed and r e v i s e d by the Academic
and adopted by the Board of Tru ste es
Implementation
Report

initiated

policies

or pr inciples

these pr inci p l e s

and procedur es

The

in hig he r e du ca tion w h i c h is

based up on c e r t a i n statements
In order to imple men t

Council

on Mar c h 16 , 1967 w i t h

120 days after that date.

is a b o l d experiment

on the

of good

faith.

or gu ide line s

into

the Report es ta bl i s h e d for change

through o r d e r l y p r o c e d u r e s ,

It has alre ad y been d e m o n s t r a t e d

that these p r o c e d u r e s have e n a b l e d several disagreements
be res ol ved

in a rea soned m a n n e r rather than through protest

and disrup tion.
perhaps

to

Another t r a n s i t i o n

in the Un iv e r s i t y wh i c h

is an ou tgr owth of the Report

sion of stud ents

on cert ain

itself is the

sta ndin g and advisory

inclu­

committees

w i thi n the University.
For tho se
student

a f f ai rs

document,

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w o r k i n g in the area of
the Report

e n a b l i n g students

appears

to be a most workable

to par ti ci pa te

con structively

7
F o r e w o r d to the Rep or t on the "Academic F r e ed om for
Students at M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y , " p r e pa re d by the Faculty
Comm it te e on Student Aff airs, M i c h i g a n State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, March, 1967,

in d e v e l o p i n g solutions
their education,

to pro blem s directly rel ate d to

For other memb ers

of the Univ er si ty

m u n i t y the Report may yet be an unknown a n d perhaps
their minds
eyes

a documen t

of some students

of limi ted value.
the Report

com­

in

Ap pa r e n t l y

in the

is not a liberal document

and r e p r e s e n t e d but to k e n p ar ti ci patio n on the part of
Q
stu dents in its formulation.
As one student wrote,
. . . it [academic freedom] flowered b r i e f l y in a
burst of liberal c o n s c i o u s n e s s as the Williams
Report went t h rou gh various am putations in the
Ac ade mic Council and Senate, and emerged a
stun ted document ov er a year ago as th e Academic
Freedom Report.9

Pur pos e of the Study
The Report

de m o n s t r a t e s how Mic higan

State Un ive r s i t y

has a t t e m p t e d to def in e and Implement academic
students.

In the p e r i o d e x t e n d i n g over o n e year since its

i m p l em en ta tion,

the Report

appears

from mem be rs of the U n i v e r s i t y
evi de nc e

that

that

success

the

of all memb ers
p oli cies,

f r e e d o m for

the Report has

to have

community.

its critics.

gained support
There is some
It is inevita ble

of this doc ume nt rests u p o n the

of the Universit y.

practic es

good faith

The e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of

and p roce du re s which have e v o l v e d and

w h i c h will evolve from the gui de lines of the Report will
O

Lynn H. Jondahl, "The Fr e e d o m of H i g h e r Educati on, "
C ross ro ad s (United P r e s b y t e r i a n Church; Bo a r d of Chris ti an
Edu ca tio n, Ap ril-June, 1 9 6 8 ).
Q
Sue Hughes, "F r e e d o m Report Found Dead," C o l l a g e ,
M i c h i g a n State N e w s , O c to be r 4, 1 9 6 8 .

depend u p o n the ac ce p t a n c e of the spirit
guidelines

were constructed.

in whi c h those

It is a n t i c i p a t e d that this

dis s e r t a t i o n will c on tr ib ute to a bette r u n d e r s t a n d i n g
of the dev el op me nt of the Report

and its i n te nd ed pur poses

as well as serving as a means of its evaluation.

Statement
This

study compares

of the Pr ob lem
the opinions

of students,

facu lty

members and a d m i ni st ra to rs r e g a r d i n g the d e s i r a b i l i t y
selected princip le s or s tat ements

of

co nta in ed in the report

on the "Academic F r e e d o m for Students at M i c h i g a n State
Uni ver si ty ."

It is a s su med that

if the pr in c i p l e s em b o d i e d

in the Report are c on si d e r e d desir ab le
in spirit,

changes

and have been a c ce pt ed

in practic es will have o c cu rr ed t h r o u g h ­

out the Un iv er s i t y which adhere to those principles.

An

attempt is made to a n alyze the diffe re nc es wh i c h mem bers
the Uni ve rs ity community may have with respect
de sira bi li ty of these pri nc iple s

to the

and any changes wh i c h are

believed to have come about t h rough their implementation .
Some of the object iv es
1.

of the study are:

To assess the degree of awarene ss
total U n i v e r s i t y

of the

c omm unity to the exi st enc e

of

the Report.
2.

To assess the degr ee to which there is a g r e e ­
ment

or di sagre em en t wi t h sele cte d g ui deli ne s

or pri nc ipl es

of

c ontai ne d in the Report.

3.

To solicit and id entify spe cific

concerns

regard in g p rinc ip le s put forth in the
Report.
4.

To assess some of the p o ss ib le dif fic ul ti es
in the

subsequent

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of p r i n c i p l e s

containe d in the Report.

D e f i n i t i o n of Terms

Principle
A funda men tal sta tement or gu id e l i n e w h i c h un de rlie s
pr act ices, pol icies and pro cedures.

A dm in i s t r a t o r
Fu ll - t i m e pr ofess io na l
engages

staff or faculty me mb e r w h o

in general or aca dem ic a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the

University.

Facu lty
A mem be r of the aca de mi c

faculty at M i c h i g a n State

U n i v e r s i t y hold in g the r a n k of a ss is tant pr of e s s o r or
above.

Student
A full-time
so pho more

(12 credits

or more)

under g r a d u a t e

of

sta nding or above who a t t e n d e d the U n i v e r s i t y

d u r i n g the 1967-68 ac ade mic year and wh o is curre nt ly
enrolled.

Student

Lea de r

A student who has been selected by his peers to
serve in the student government of the Uni versi ty ,
as l i ving unit pre sident or at the A l l - U n i v e r s i t y

Li mitation s

eith er
level.

of the Study

In a dd i t i o n to the cu sto ma ry

factors

inherent

in the

use of any que st i o n n a i r e a l imit at io n of this study is that
certain pr ac t i c e s rel ating to pri nc ip le s put forth in the
Report may well have been im pl em ented pr i o r to the Report
and thus,

are not a direct result

of the Report.

An o t h e r

limitati on is that the study was not d e s i g n e d to eva lua te
the e ff ec t i v e n e s s of the practices,

policie s or p r o c e d u r e s

that have e v ol ve d from these principles.

Procedure for the Study
A forty item que stionnaire,
lines or p r i n c i p l e s

based on ge ne ral g u i d e ­

from the report on the

"Academic

F r e e d o m for Students at Michigan State U n i v e rs it y, " was
desi gn ed to solicit the opinions
of the U n i v e r s i t y

community.

The

and r e fined from a quest ion naire
ples and policies.

A pilot

of a s a mplin g of mem be rs
forty items were

s e le ct ed

comp osed of seventy p r i n c i ­

study with twen ty

student

p er so nnel deans resp o n d i n g r e s u l t e d in the e l i m i n a t i o n of
policy st atemen ts

and the c l a r i f i c a t i o n in w o r d i n g and fo rm

of the se l e c t e d principles.
solicit

two responses

The

instrument was d e s i g n e d to

for each of the forty pri nciples:

11

(a)

the degree

to which

the p ri n c i p l e

is b e l i e v e d

to be desirable.
(b)

the degree to wh ic h

p r ac tice s have

moved closer to the p rinc ip le

alre ad y

over

the past

year beca us e of the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

of the

Report.
The items

in the qu es t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e d p r i n c i p l e s or

statements of student
general areas;

rights and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

aca d em ic and classroom,

regulatio ns , rules and student

in four

s t ud en t records,

conduct,

and f r e e d o m of

expression.
Thirty -s ix

of the s tate me nt s were t a k e n d i r e c t l y from

the report on th e

"Academic F r e e d o m for Stu de nt s

State Uni ve rs it y."

Four

statements not

at Mi c h i g a n

inc l u d e d in the

Report but beli eved to be u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s

for the

develo pm en t of a speaker's pol ic y in 1962 an d a r e si dence
ha l l r o o m search policy d e v e l o p e d in 1967 were
A random sample

of indivi dua ls

fo r the

s e l e c t e d from t h e f o l l o w i n g pop ulations:
time

(12 of more

credits)

who attended Mic h i g a n

sophomores,

State d u r i n g the

added.

study was

(1) all

juniors

full

and seniors

1 9 6 7 - 6 8 a ca de mi c

year and who we re en r o l l e d for the fall te r m of 1968;

(2)

all liv ing unit p r e s i d e n t s or elected s t udent

at

leaders

the a l l - un iv ersit y level of student g o v e r n m e n t wh o met
same qualif ic ations as i n d i c a t e d above
(3) all academic

faculty of the

the

for the students;

rank of a s si stan t

p ro fess or

12

or above who he l d appoin tme nts
1967-68 academic

at M i c h i g a n State d u r i n g the

year and who hel d c o m p a r a b l e

d u r i n g the fall term of 1968;

and

appoin tme nts

(4) p r o f e s s i o n a l

staff

and academic a d m i nis tr at or s who were on ca mp u s d u ring the
1967-68 academic
ments

year and who ha d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p o i n t ­

for the fall t e r m of 1968.

P r o m ea ch o f these p o p u l a ­

tions 100 individuals were r a nd omly sampled.
Respondents were r e q u e s t e d to give t h e i r o p in io n on
each of the two arbitrari ly e s t a b l i s h e d
scales.

hig hly desirable.
p ract ic es

ranged f r o m u n d e s i r a b l e to

The rating ran ge d f r o m no

on Scale b to great

a non-parametric

any significant
groups.

(5) point

The rat ing for Scale a, hav in g to do with the

d e s i ra bi li ty of the principle,

square,

five

change in

change in pra ct ic es .

statistic,

Chi

was used to dete r m i n e

di ffe rences in the r e s p o n s e s

of the four

Comments were s o li cited after ea ch it e m or

principle.

The

comments were edited and th o s e

si mil ar in meaning and content,

comments,

made by two or more r e s p o n ­

dents were included in the ana lysi s

of the study.

Or ganizat ion of the Study
This study

is p resen te d

in six cha pt ers.

is an in tro duct ion to the study and inc lud es

C h ap ter I

a statement

of the problem,

pur pos e of the

study, p r o c e d u r e s us e d and

the limitations

of the study.

Chapter

II inc lud es

d e s c r i p t i o n of the histori ca l d e v e l o p m e n t
d o m for students

a brief

of acad em ic

fr e e ­

and a review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e la te d to

13

this topic.
study,

To b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d the s i g n i f i c a n c e

the hi sto r i c a l de ve lo p m e n t

"Academic Freedom for Students
has be e n included as Chapter

of the report

on the

at M i c h i g a n State Un iv er si ty"

III.

The det ai ls

for the study in cl u d i n g the deve lo pmen t
procedures

of the

of the d e sign

of the qu es ti onna ir e,

for c o n d u c t i n g the study and a n a l y z i n g the data

are contained in C h a p t e r

IV.

The analysis

are reported in C h a p t e r V and the summary,
implications

for furt her

of the findings
co nclus io ns

study are found in C h a p t e r VI.

and

CH A P T E R

II

H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T OP ACA D EM IC
F R E E D O M IN TH E U N I T E D STATES AN D
R E V I E W OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E

In t r o d u c t i o n
Ch a p t e r II is con c e r n e d w i t h the lit er atu re
to the h i s t o r i c a l de v e l o p m e n t of academic
students

in the U n ited States.

re l a t i n g

f r e e d o m for

It is p r e s e n t e d in the per

spective of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l and legal h i s t o r y of the con
cept of academic

fre edom for students.

literature and re s e a r c h p er tinen t

A r e v i e w of the

to this

study is also

presented.

Hi st or i c a l De velo p m e n t
The t e r m academic

f r e e d o m as know n in the Uni ted

States is c o m p a r a t i v e l y new even wh e n used in c on ne c t i o n
with those who tea ch or advocate.

Samuel Eliot M o r i s o n

refers to the t e r m as the newest arr iv al
ranks.

in the

free dom

He note d that:

the phrase itself did not enter the E n g l i s h language
until the turn of the n i n e t e e n t h to the t w e n t i e t h
century [in the year 1897]; and Pres ide nt Charles W.

15

Eliots' Phi Beta Kappa address of 1957, "Academic
Fr eed om," is the ear lie st title one can find in a
library on the s u b j e c t . 1
Histor ic al ly,

the p h i l o s o p h i c a l

concept

f lo ur ished

in Germany d u r i n g the n i n e t e e n t h cent ury and it was
stated in the P r u s s i a n C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1850 that
shall be free.

The G e rm an d e f i n i t i o n of ac ad emic

was d e s c r i b e d in two words:
A c c o r d i n g to M e t z g e r the

Lernfrelheit

even

science
freedom

and L e h r f r e i h e i t .

f o l l o w i n g descr ib es

the m e a n i n g of

Lernfrelheit:
By L er n f r e l h e i t he [the G e r m a n p ro fe ssor] meant
the abs enc e of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e co erc ions in the
l ea rn in g situation.
He r e f e r r e d to the fact that
Ger man students we re free to r o a m fr om place to
place, s a m p l i n g ac ade mi c wares; that w h e r e v e r they
lighted, they were free to de te r m i n e the choice
and sequence of courses, and were r e s p o n s i b l e to
no one for r e g u l a r atte nd ance ; that they lived in
pri vat e qua rte rs and c o n t r o l l e d their priv ate
lives.
This f r e e d o m was d e em ed e s sen ti al to the
main pur po se s of the Ge rm a n u n i v e r s i t y . 2
Lehr f r e i h e i t

or f r e e d o m of the tea che r had to do

with the total p e r m i s s i v e a t m o s p h e r e that
process of r e se arch and teaching.
both the t e ac he r and the

s u r r o u n d e d the

M e t z g e r poi nts

le arner enjo ye d p r i v i l e g e d status.

For the learner it m a r k e d his a r riv al at man's
For the p r o f e s s o r

estate.

it pl ac e d h i m in the ranks of the elite.

Thus were the b e g i n n i n g s

of the academic

community.

^Mil ton R. Konvltz, E x p a n d i n g Li ber ti es
The V i k i n g Press, 1 9 6 6 ), p. 86.
2

out that

W a lte r P. Metzger,
the U n i v e r s i t y (New York:
pp"] 112-115.

(New York:

Aca de mi c F r e e d o m in the Age of
C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1^55),

Ral ph Fuchs
the Un it e d States
torical

states

that

aca demic

f r ee do m as known in

today has e v olved mai nl y

fro m three h i s ­

foundations:

(1)

the p h i l o s o p h y of i nt e l l e c t u a l freedom, w h i c h
o r i g i n a t e d in Greece, arose aga in in Europe,
e sp ec ia lly under the impact of the Renais sance,
and came to m a t u r i t y in the Age of Reason;

(2)

the idea of a u t on om y
sc holars w h i c h arose
E u r o p e ; and

(3)

for c om mu niti es of
in the u n i v e r s i t i e s

of

the freedoms g u a r a n t e e d by the Bill of Rights
of the Federal C o n s t i t u t i o n as e l a b o r a t e d by
the c o u r t s . 3

It is this third h i s t o r i c a l

fou nd a t i o n w h i c h has

e xped it ed and ex p a n d e d the concept

of a c ade mi c

free do m in

the Uni te d States, p a r t i c u l a r l y as it p e rt ai ns

to student

freedoms

and ev entu a l l y the wo rd

Konvitz even for faculty ac ade mi c

"rights."

f r e e d o m was not,

re cen tly as 1 9 3 7 , stated by law to be a
or a c o n s tit ut io na l pr ivil ege ,
Konvitz

A c c o r d i n g to

'property*

as
right

or even a legal term.

states:

D u rin g the 1950's, how ever, acad em ic f r ee dom
came to the fore in a n u mber of Supreme Court
cases, and at last it can be said that academic
fr ee dom has eme rg ed as an int erest wi t h a strong
c la i m on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t ec ti on.^
A l th ou gh these co nsti t u t i o n a l

liber tie s were att end ed

to by the courts on b e h a l f of faculti es

only as rec en tl y as

3
Ralph Fuchs, "Academic F r e e d o m — Its Basic Philosophy,
F u n c t i o n and Hist or y, " Law and C o n t e m p o r a r y P r o b l e m s , Vol.
XXVIII, No. 3 (Summer, 1963), p. 431.
4

Konvitz,

op.

clt.

17

the 1950's,
students.

they were

comp le t e l y Igno red on beha lf of

In order to u n d e r s t a n d the

of aca demic

latent deve lo pm en t

f r eedo m for students one needs only to consider

the h i story of A m e r i c a n colleges and unive rsi ties.

Ru dol ph

describes the ty pic al early A m e r i c a n col leg e as bei ng
p a t t e r n e d aft er the B r iti sh r e s i d en ti al
of fe re d few freedoms.
objectiv e was to have

5

In fact,
the student

to a spec if ic way of life,

college, whi ch

the basi c

ed uc at io nal

c o n f o r m in every respect

r e g u l a t i n g his total environment.

This r e l a t i o n s h i p whi c h e x is te d for ove r two centuries
still exists today in some
parentis.'
parentis'

colleges,

is called

and

'in loco

The sta n d i n g in place of the parent or

'in loco

re s u l t e d in the r e g u l a t i o n of all aspects

of

student b e h a v i o r and is best de sc r i b e d in the court ru li n g
of Ber ea Coll ege

in K en tu cky in 1913,

pr o h i b i t e d by the college
taurants,

where

student s were

from p a t r o n i z i n g off -c ampus r e s ­

In u p h o l d i n g the

college the court rule d that:

College a ut ho rities stand 'in loco parentis' c o n ­
c e rni ng the ph y s i c a l and moral w e l f a r e and mental
t r a i n i n g of pupils.
For the p u r po se of this case,
the school, its off icers and students are a legal
entity, as mu c h as any family, and, like a father
may direc t his children, those in charge of b o a r d i n g
schools are well w i t h i n their righ ts and powers wh en
they direct their students what to eat and where
they may get it; where they may go and what forms
of amu se me nt are f o r b i d d e n . 6

5

sity

F r e d e r i c k Rudolph, The A m e r i c a n College and U n i v e r ­
(New York:
R a n d o m H o u s e , 1962), p p . I 3S - 3 6 4 .

^Gott v. Berea College,
(1913) .

156 K y ., 376,

161 S.W.

204

18

In s p e a k i n g to such a concept
some colleges today,

Weiss

as It may exist

In

states:

N ev er theles s, this b e l i e f that a c ti ng 'in loco
parentis' as a latent f un c t i o n of the u n i v e r s i t y
is but a myth.
College and u n i v e r s i t i e s are not
hou se hol ds ; rather, they are r e p o si tori es , forums,
mediums, lab ora tories, a r e n a s — they of f e r t hou sa nd s
of p o s s i b i l i t i e s for descri pt ion, none of w h i c h
in cludes the concept of family.
It is at the
u n i v e r s i t y in fact, that c h il dr en are a l i e n a t e d
from their par ent s by savants who are es s e n t i a l l y
a li e n a t e d fr om c o n t e m p o r a r y society; and both
chi ld ren and tea ch ers are i n v o l v e d in the pro c es s
of c r e a t i n g the future.
The roles of such c hi ld ren
and tea che rs exclude, in r e l a t i o n to each other, the
roles of o f f - s p r i n g and parents.
The all too m i s ­
l e adi ng anal og y that exists only in the sense that
parents and tea che rs alike shape the minds of you ng
people.
However, the home more often than not
att empts to p e r p e t u a t e tra di ti ons, wh e r e a s the
school att em pt s to create ne w ones t h r o u g h the
e x a m i n a t i o n of the o l d . 7
A more c om pa ti bl e concept
d e f i n e d by Fuchs as that
community,

of ac a d e m i c f r e e d o m is

f r e e d o m of m e mb er s of the aca d em ic

a s s e m b l e d in col leges

and u n i v e r s i t i e s ,

u nd er lies the effecti ve p e r f o r m a n c e

which

of the arts and research.

Such a right must be m a i n t a i n e d In ord er to enable

facu lty

g

and students to carry out their roles.
In a s s e s s i n g the events w h i c h have led up to the
present,

it is rath er d if fi cu lt

'in loco parentis'

to int erpr et

w h e t h e r the

concept has been c h an ge d fro m w i t h i n

t h rou gh the e nl i g h t e n m e n t of the i n s t i t u t i o n and its
7

D o nal d H. Weiss, " F re ed om of A s s o c i a t i o n for S t u ­
dents," The J o ur na l of Hi gh er E d u c a t i o n , XXXVIII, No. 4
(April, 19&7 ), p . l B 7 .
g

Fuchs,

op.

clt,

19

students or fr om w i th out

as a result

the I n t e r v e n t i o n of courts
Sanf or d speaks

of social chan ges

and

in cases of civil liberties.

to this point w h e n he says:

In t r y i n g to deal w i t h all the kinds of i n fl ue nc e
that are b r o u g h t to be ar up on students one must
not only c o ns id er pol ici es and p ra c t i c e s d e l i b e r ­
ately a d o p t e d by the faculty and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
but also a great v a r i e t y of factors a r i s i n g out
of the g e ne ra l cult ure and social o r g a n i z a t i o n of
the c o ll ege community.
Whe n col leges do change,
it is u s u a l l y b e c a u s e of inf lu enc es c om i n g fro m
outside.
P r o m this point of vi e w the stud ent s
s i n g u l a r l y or aggr ega te, are parts of the
system; they int eract with the oth er components;
and thus the ir e n v i r on me nt is to some extent of
the ir own m a k i n g . 9
U n d o u b t e d l y the courts have p l ay ed an i mp or tant role
in c l a r i f y i n g s t u d e n t s ’ rights.

V a n Alst yn e notes the

f o l l o w i n g chan ges w h i c h have t e n d e d to Increa se

student

rights:
(1)

E d u c a t i o n is no long er re g a r d e d as the p r e ­
r o g a t i v e of a small p r i v i l e g e d group but is
v i e w e d as so me t h i n g which, in the int erest
of the na t i o n ' s economic, social, and
p o l i t i c a l we l l - b e i n g , should be open to all
wh o can benefit from it.

(2)

Student acad emic f r eedo m is now be i n g c h a m p i o n e d
by a nu mb e r of groups, such as the A m e r i c a n
A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Pro fessors, w h i c h 50
year s ago took no int erest in it,

(3)

T o da y the Supreme Courts' con ce rn for c o n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l lib er ti es is such that most of its
time is tak en up wi t h civil liberties cases.

(4)

Most stu dents are now e nr ol le d in public
r a t h e r than priv at e i n s t ituti on s whe re as
the r e ve rs e used to be true.

Q

Nevi tt Sanford, ed., The A me r i c a n Col lege
Wile y and Sons, 1966), p~ 58".

(New York:

20

(5)

The old do c t r i n e of ’In loco p a r e n t i s 1 Is
out of date in an age when, at large u n i v e r ­
sities, most students are over 2 1 .1°

It is V a n A l s t y n e ’s fourth point whi ch
e ncou ra ge d the courts to assert
the past decade.

th em se l v e s more r e ad il y in

The best exam pl e

is the Di x o n v. A l a b a m a

State Boa rd of E d u c a t i o n whi ch pr e s e n t s
due pro cess

seems to have

a l e ading case on

for s t u d e n t s .^1

Moneypenny

e lab or at es on the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n

public and p r iv ate in stit ut io ns

re l a t i v e to student rights:

the a p p l i c a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l li mitat io ns for
student righ ts in gen era l rests on the c on ti nued
te nab i l i t y of the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n publi c and
pri vate In st itut ion s.
The rece nt cases o v e r t u r n i n g
de ci sio ns of di sm i s s a l for a s s e r t i n g the civil
liberties of faculty and students have all a r is en
at publ ic insti tut ions.
They have re st e d on the
view that the f o u r t e e n t h a m end me nt app lies to the
campus as to oth er areas of state g o v e r n m e n t a l
action, and that n e i t h e r a t t e n d a n c e nor e mp lo ym ent
can be made to rest on a w a i v e r of the fourt e e n t h
amendment rights.
Whe n the i n s t i t u t i o n in v o l v e d
is a public one, there is ample prec e d e n t for going
into court over the denial of civil liberties
rights, i n c l u d i n g the right to p r o c e d u r a l due p r o ­
cess.
The due process and legal p r o t e c t i o n c o n ­
ceptions p r e s u m a b l y also inc l ud e the qu e s t i o n of
w h e t h e r re g u l a t i o n s are rea sonab le , fair In re l a t i o n
to va rio us sit ua ti ons and par ties , and w h e t h e r
their a p p l i c a t i o n in a given i ns tance rests upon
some kind of e v i d e n c e .12

10W i l l l a m W. V a n Alstyne,
( W i n t e r , 1965).

Law in T r a n s i t i o n Quar terly

11Dlx on v. A l a b a m a State B o a r d of E d u c a t i o n , 294
Fed era l Rep orter, 2nd series, No. 18641, U n it ed States
Court of Appeals , Circuit 5, 1961, pp. 150-165.
1 2 Phillip M on ey pe nn y, "The Student as a Stu dent,"
De nv er Law J o u r n a l , Vol. 45, No. 4 (Special, 1968), p. 654.

21

The

s e l f - e x e r t i o n of the

stu dents

freedoms,

r e i n f o r c e d by recent

court

the only reas on
of freedom.

actions,

for stu dents to have

Ac a d e m i c

in s e ek in g e x te nded
have not be en

ac h i e v e d the conditions

f r e e d o m for the

faculty seems to have

been an i n s t i t u t i o n a l th i n g r a ther th an an ed u c a t i o n a l cause
and thus,

p re vi ou s

to recent times,

the c o n c e r n in the rear ech el on s
However,
to the

there appears

have

These

caused academic

for student

to be a re su r g e n c e

long ov erlo o k e d pr in c i p l e

are in div is ibl e.

has t e nd ed to muffle

that

freedoms.

and a r e - d e d i c a t i o n

l ea rn in g and t e a c h i n g

con cerns have beco me rea li ties and

f r e e d o m for students not to be thought

of as su bject m a t t e r but r a t h e r as the object
In 1950

students

first as s e r t e d t h em se lv es throug h

the U n i t e d States Na t i o n a l Student
ing the Student

of education.

Bill of R i g h t s .

A s s o c i a t i o n by f o r m u l a t ­

In the pres en t

decade

seve ra l p r o f e s s i o n a l groups have a s sum ed a g u a r dia ns hi p
role

for student

proposals.

f r e e d o m and have p u b l i s h e d rather d e ta il ed

Generally,

former n e u t r a l i t y roles

these st ate me nt s have aba ndo ne d
and called for what

some wou ld

refer to as ext rem e stands r e la ti ve to student

freedoms.

The first p o s i t i o n pa pe r to have be e n p re s e n t e d by a special
interest

or p r o f e s s i o n a l group was

the statem ent

on student

freedoms

p u b l i s h e d by the Am e r i c a n Civil Lib ert ies Uni on

in 1 9 6 1 . 13
1^

A m e r i c a n Civil Lib er ti es Union, "Teacher Dis cl osur e
of I n f o r m a t i o n About Stu de nts to Pro sp ec ti ve Employers,"

1961.

22

In the a u tu mn of 1964 the C ommit te e

S of the A m e r i ­

can A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Pr of e s s o r s p u b l i s h e d the
"Statement

on F a cu lt y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

F r e e d o m of Students" w h i c h d e s i g n a t e d
concern for student

freedom:

p r o f e s s o r as a teacher;
as a p a r t i cipa nt
bili ty

four areas

of faculty

the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the

the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

of the p r o f e s s o r

in I n s t i t u t i o n a l go ver nment;

of the faculty

responsi­

for s a f e g u a r d i n g o f f- ca mp us

of students and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
due process

for the Aca demi c

of faculty

in cases of alle ged miscon duct .

14

freedoms

for p r o c e d u r a l
In July of

1967 the Am e r i c a n C o un cil of E d u c a t i o n r e c o g n i z e d the o b l i ­
gat ion that e d u c a t io na l

i n s t i t ut io ns have to:

protect their students fro m u n w a r r a n t e d intr u s i o n
into their lives and fr om h u r t f u l or t h r e a t e n i n g
i nt er ferenc e in the e x p l o i t a t i o n of ideas and their
conseq ue nc es that e d u c a t i o n entails.
The A m e r i c a n
Council on E d u c a t i o n t he re fo re urges that colleges
and un i v e r s i t i e s adopt clear p ol ic ie s on the c o n ­
fi den tialit y of students' records, g i v i n g due
att en tio n to the ed u c a t i o n a l s i g n i fica nc e their
decisi ons may h a v e . ! 5
An attempt at some kind of consens us
freedoms
Rights

is pres e n t e d thro ug h the

and Fre edom s

by repre se n t a t i v e s

of Stude nts ,"

of a p p r o pria te

"Joint
This

Stat em en t
statement,

student
on the
dr a f t e d

from ten n a ti onal e d u c a t i o n a l a s s o c i a ­

tions such as the Am e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of Un iv er s i t y
14

"Statement on Fa c u l t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Academic
F r e e d o m for S t ud en ts ," C o mm it te e S of the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a ­
tion of Un ivers it y Profes so rs, A.A.U.P. Bulletin, Autumn,
1964, pp. 254-257.
15

Statement on C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Student R e c o r d s ,
A m eri ca n Council on Educat io n, July 7, 1967, p. 2~.

23

Professors,

the N a tio na l A s s o c i a t i o n of Student

Admini st r a t o r s ,

the N a ti on al Student

A m eri ca n Council on Educat io n,

e s t a b l i s h some consens us
freedoms
student

in such areas
records,

publications
mental

The

sta t em en t

is an atte mp t

in very g e n e r a l terms

in dr a f t i n g the Joint

for student

in the c l a s s r o o m and student

X6

The as s o c i a t i o n s

instru­

S ta t e m e n t are current ly

the sta tem ent

in st and ards

and to seek a c c e p t a n c e

for accredi tat ion.

It is well to close the h i s t o r i c a l de v e l o p m e n t
aca dem ic

f r ee do m for students with the

on the Rights and F ree do ms
the e du ca ti onal
of ac ad emic

of St udents"

as we ll as the

Statement, " whi ch i n c o r po rate s

"best exi s t i n g p ra ctice s"

for it p r o v i d e s

In addition,

serves

of student

the

"Joint

f r e e d o m to

as a m od e l of the

for u n i v e r s i t i e s

e s t a b l i s h their own concept

for the r e a l m

the b e l i e f that

in sep arable,

of

"Joint St at e m e n t

legal basis

fre ed om for students.

learn and teach are

to

as access to h i g h e r education ,

to m e n t i o n a few.

of the pr inc i p l e s

the

for such act ion as those

student rights

a t t e m p t i n g to pro mo te

Ass ociat io n,

et a l ., has been su bm i t t e d

to the r espe ct iv e o r g a n i z a t i o n s
bodies d e e m appropriate.

Per s o n n e l

to id e n t i f y and

freedoms

as they

d e e m n ec es sa ry and d es irabl e w i t h i n the context of their
r es pe ctive e d u c a tion al

goals.

■^Joint Statement on Righ ts and Fre edo ms of Students,
under the auspice s of the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r ­
sity Professors.
T h i r t y - t h r e e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s fr o m the
nati on al ed uc at io nal org ani zati on s.
Wa shi ng to n, D.C.,
1966 .

24

R e lat ed L i t e r a t u r e and R es ea rc h
Sev era l u n i v e r s i t i e s and colleges have d e v e l o p e d
statemen ts
these

r e l a t i n g to student

statem ents,

stages,

freedoms.

For the most part

e i t he r in the p r e l i m i n a r y or final

app ear to be an attempt

to e s t a b l i s h channels

to codify r e g u l a t i o n s

and pr oc e d u r e s

and

for h e a r i n g and

r e s o l v i n g di ffe rences.
In d o i n g an a na lysi s of student
h an db ooks
Kluge

freedoms

s o li cited fr om 12 in st i t u t i o n s

of h i g h e r

and Smith found that each i n s t i tu ti on

on a c o n t i n u u m w i t h the two e xtr em es

as found in
lea rn in g

could be pla ce d

re pre sented:

(a) by the u n i v e r s i t y w h i c h has m e re ly come to a
r e c o g n i t i o n of the nee d for a change and (b) by
that i n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h has j o in ed hands w i t h its
students to e s t a b l i s h a n e w statement of rights
and freedoms d e s i g n e d to g o v e r n the entire
academic c o m m u n i t y .
The stance tak e n by several u n i v e r s i t i e s

are quo te d

from Kluge and Smith:
the U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n challenges each student
wi t h "f r e e d o m and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " by p l a c i n g upo n
the student the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e x e r c i s i n g his
p r i v i l e g e s of f r e e d o m w i t h i n the fram ew ork of
respect for in di v i d u a l Inte gr ity combined wi t h
^g
respect for the best int erests of the community.
A clear i n d i c a t i o n of student Involve men t and a
statement on student rights came from a c om mi tt ee
of faculty and stu d en ts at the U niver si ty of K e n ­
tucky.
The mai n premise was that students have both
17

D o nal d A. Kluge and J a c q u e l i n e Smith, "Recent
St at e m e n t s of Princi ples, Rights, and P roced ur es in Student
Behav io r, " Jo ur nal of the Na t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Women
Deans and Co uns elors" Winter, 1968, p p . 64-68.

25

a legal and mor al rig ht to k n o w what Is e x p e c t e d
of them, and the c o m m i t t e e i d e n t i f i e d for the
student five d i f f e r e n t roles:
scholar, tenant,
m e m b e r of a student o r g a n i z a t i o n , emp loy er, an d
cus to mer of goods and s e r v i c e s , 19
Smit h an d Kluge

felt that

a l i bera l a g r e e m e n t

ba s e d

on f r ee do m and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y b e t w e e n the U n i v e r s i t y
Chi cago and the

student was the mos t

d e f i n i t i o n of student
They o b s e r v e d that

r i gh ts

s t ud en ts

in the

free

The Co mm i t t e e
at the U n i v e r s i t y

or i e n t e d

found a m o n g the 12 insti t u t i o n s .
are a c c o r d e d the

e x p r e s s i o n and inquiry but must
membership

educationally

the student

20

I n n o v a t i o n and D e v e l o p m e n t

of C a l i f o r n i a at Los A n g e l e s has a d v o c a t e d

its ch air ma n,

P r o f e s s o r Knotter,

a more a c ti ve p a r t i c i p a n t

rat her than as a spectator.
A University Council
lished at B r o w n U n i v e r s i t y
partnership

in d e v e l o p i n g

com m it te e

as

was m a k i n g

in the u n i v e r s i t y

21
on S t ud en t
to In su r e

Affa irs was

estab­

a faculty-student

social p o lici es ,

and ca r r y i n g out d i s c i p l i n a r y action.
stated in his

of

a s s u m e the o b l i g a t i o n of

community.

on Ac a d e m i c

f r eedo ms

gr ea ter f r e e d o m for s t ud en ts w i t h the ma i n p u rp os e,
i nd ic at ed by

of

e n f o r c i n g rules

Prof e s s o r M c G r a t h

report:

1SIbl d.
2 0 „,
K l u g e , op.
21

clt.

"C omm it te e on A c a d e m i c I n n o v a t i o n and D e v e l o p m e n t
at the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at Los A n gele s, " p r i n t e d
in Los A n ge le s T i m e s , D e c e m b e r 6 , 1967.

P a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n m a k i n g by those w h o m
the d e c i s i o n may aff ec t is an i n c r e a s i n g l y ev id ent
p a t t e r n in many ins tit ut io ns, a n d we b e l ie ve that
such p a r t i c i p a t i o n is es se n t i a l in the social and
student conduct areas . . . .
Mo r e sp ec if ic al ly,
it is our c o n v i c t i o n that the s t u d e n t s ’ role s h ou ld
be very s ubsta nt ia l . . . we b e l i e v e that the
students are more li ke ly to act m a t u r e l y and
r e s p o n s i b l y wi th i n a social s y s t e m w h i c h they
he l p to cre ate and e n f o r c e . 22
In the
Conduct
School

spr in g of 1968 a R e s e a r c h Se mi nar on Student

and D i s c i p l i n e was o f fe re d at N e w York U n i v e r s i t y
of Law.

Six teen students

and four faculty m e m be rs

w o r k e d out a code and r a t i o n a l e w h i c h they beli eve w o u l d
all ow

students

as much f r e e d o m as p o s s i b l e

ed u c a t i o n a l objectives.
p u b l i s h e d as

The concept
today

and D i s c i p l i n e Pr ocee d i n g s

Setting" by the N e w York U n i v e r s i t y

of La w in August

of f r e e d o m as e v i d e n c e d by the tre nd s
H a r o l d T a y l o r takes a s ce pt ical

view since he obse rved an e x p e r i m e n t a l
at Sara h Law renc e Col lege

T a ylo r o b s er ve d that at

first

this

v i g o r o u s l y e x p r e s s e d and students

app r o a c h to student

in the

1930 ’s and

degree

of f r e e d o m was

participated

and rul e making.

However,

1 9 4 0 ’s.

in an

a t m o s p h e r e of aut onomy t h r o u g h their p u b l i ca ti ons,
cal o r g a n i z a t i o n s

School

of 1968.

is n o t h i n g new.

freedoms

their

Th es e codes wi t h c om me nt ary were

"Student C o nduc t

in a U n i v e r s i t y

to p u rs ue

politi­

d u r i n g the

22
Report

"A L o o s e r Rein on St ud en ts," Summary of the McG r at h
at Bro w n Un iv er si ty, New York T i m e s , May 14, 1967.

23

Student Conduct and D i s c i p l i n e P r o c e e d i n g s in a
U n i v e r s i t y Setting, New York U n i v e r s i t y School of Law,
August’/ "IWH"•-----

27

the

1 9 5 0 's the v i g o r that exi st ed w h e n coll ege a u t h o r i t y

was

first removed

so o n wan e d with st u d e n t s n e g l e c t i n g the

responsib il it ie s t h e y had so e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y assumed.
Taylor ma intain s that:
If students are given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y
for an a u t o n o m o u s student commun ity , w i t h o u t a
direct and w o r k i n g co nn e c t i o n w i t h the two o t he r
ess en tia l co mmu nity c o m p o n e n t s — the facu lt y and the
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n — the s y s t e m grind s to a stop and
ceases to f u nc ti on as a true communit y.
It is
fa lla cious to assu me , as the o l d e r p r o g r e s s i v e
theory holds, that a b se nc e of i n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r ­
ity and the a w a r d of f r ee dom to the y o u n g in a
r adic al ly dem ocr at s y s t e m will d e v e l o p an u n d e r ­
st and ing of dem oc ra cy.
On the contrary, we have
found that in m a n y cases it a c t u a l l y t e n d e d to
foster a u t h o r i t a r i a n a t t i t u d e s . The fall ac y lies
in a s s u m i n g t h a t bec au se stu dents hav e student
rights an d e q ua l status tiwh f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a ­
tion, the y sho u l d p e r f o r m the same role.
If this
fallacy is a c t e d upon in e d u c a t i o n a l planni ng ,
students may i n sist upo n the right to make d e c i s i o n s
on all qu est io ns , reg ar dles s of c om pe te nce, e x p e r i ­
ence or kno wl edge , and r e g a r d l e s s of the rig hts
and judgment o f faculty and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
It
may res ul t in so much student b i c k e r i n g over
legalisms and p r o c e d u r e that no student enjoys
any part of s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t .24
The
nificant.

single o b j e c t i v e
Reference

Students F r eedom o f

study c o m p l e t e d to date

is made to stu dy on the
Express ion " as

W illi am so n and J o h n L. Cowan,
national

" Am e r i c a n

co nd u c t e d by E.

a project

is s i g ­

G.

c a r ri ed out on a

25
scope in 1 9 6 3 .

24

H a r o l d Tay lor , "Freed om a n d A u t h o r i t y on Ca m p u s , "
in The A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e , ed. by N e vl tt S a n f o r d (New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1 9 6 6 ) 7 pp. 774-804.
25

E. G. W i l l i a m s o n and John L. Cowan, The A m e r i c a n
Students' Fre ed om o f E x p r e s s i o n (Minneapolis!
University
of M i n n e s o t a Press, i9 6 0 ).

28

Co ll eg e pre si d e n t s ,
student

leaders were

at t h eir r e s p e c t i v e
of d e s i r a b l e
di ff e r e n t

deans

of students,

asked to assess the state of f r ee do m
ins t i t u t i o n s and to expr es s their views

changes.

Eight h u n d r e d fifty i n s t i t u t i o n s

types r e s p o n d e d w i t h t he i r p e r c e p t i o n s

freedoms.

a g re ed that

have u n r e s t r i c t e d f r e e d o m to dis cu ss
c on se ns us was

f r e e d o m that

the e d u c a t i o n a l

stud ent s p a r t i c i p a t e

forms

are d e s i r a b l e w i t h i n the context

goals of the ins ti tution.

freedoms be estab lish ed.

of

Williamson
of d e s i r a b l e

aca­

He also sees the need for

fur the r d e l i n e a t i o n of the p r obl em s
aca de mic

in v a r y ­

Williamson

sho uld def in e and adopt

re co m m e n d s that g u i d e l i n e s or stat em en ts
demic

of

s p ea ker policies.

in f o r m u l a t i n g coll eg e policies.

c on cl ud ed that in s t i t u t i o n s
of student

issues.

foun d r e g a r d i n g p e r m i s s a b l e me t h o d s

The study r e v e a l e d that
ing d e gr ee s

regard­

students

controversial

a d v o c a t i n g p a r t i s a n a c ti on and off -c a m p u s

of

of student

W i l l i a m s o n found that most r e s p o nd ents,

less of the type of their college,

Less

facu lt y and

and issues

of student

f r ee do m t h r o u g h r e s e a r c h methods.

Summ ary
Col leg es
to i de nt ify

and u n i v e r s i t i e s have

le git im at e

and in dif fer ent ways.

student

the f r e e d o m of the
its o w n

rights by d i f f e r e n t means

N e v e rth el es s,

each i n s t i t u t i o n must wo r k out

a p p r o a c h e d the need

it stands

its own solutio ns

student to learn w i t h i n the

"i n s t i t u t i o n a l dr ift."

out that
to insure

context

Surely, what one

of

institution

29

w ou l d feel a p p r o p r i a t e per ha ps wo u l d be totall y u n a c c e p t ­
able to another.
g uide li ne s

How ever,

there a p pe ar to be certain

for conditio ns both on and off campus which

are rel evan t

in d e f i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p

tion wit h the

student.

the Preamble to the

Such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

"Joint

times r e f e r r e d to as the

S ta teme nt "

are stated in

or as it is so me ­

"Student Bill of Rig hts."

a dd it ion to p o i n t i n g out that
the purp os es

of the i n s t i t u ­

i n s t i t u t i o n a l p roce du re s

of i d e n t i f y i n g le gi ti m a t e aca demic

for students may vary

In

from campus to campus,

for

freedoms

c e rt ai n min i-

A

mal

st an dar ds

are essential.

the de v e l o p m e n t

The last p a r a g r a p h

of such d e s i r e d

co ndi ti on s

speaks to

for l e a r n i n g

as follows:
The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to secure and to resp ect gen er al
condi ti on s co nduciv e to the f r e e d o m to learn is
shared by all m e mb ers of the academ ic community.
Ea ch college and u n i v e r s i t y has a duty to develop
poli ci es and p r o c e d u r e s w h i c h p r o v i d e and s a fe gu ar d
this freedom.
Such po l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s should
be d e v e l o p e d at each i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h i n the f r a m e ­
wo rk of gen er al standar ds and w i t h the bro ade st
po ss ib le p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the memb er s of the academic
community.
The pu r p o s e of this sta te me nt is to
enumer at e the e s sen ti al p r o v i s i o n s for student
f r e e d o m to l e a r n . 2 6
The next
versity

chapter de sc r i b e s how a larger public u n i ­

came to r ec o g n i z e the need for st u d y i n g the r e l a ­

tionship of the u n i v e r s i t y wi t h the
insure its cen tral pur po se,
describes

the

conditions

student

the right to learn.

and c i r c u m s t a n c e s whi ch

p^
Joint

Statement

in order to

. . . , op.

clt.

It
lead to

the de velopment

of the report on the

"Academic F r eedom

of Students at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e rsity ."

CHAPTER

III

H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF THE R E P O R T
ON T H E

" ACA DE MI C F R E E D O M FOR S T U D E N T S

AT M I C H I G A N S T AT E U N I V E R S I T Y

Introduction
Ch ap te r

III d e s c r i b e s

and c i r c u m s t a n c e s
on the

some

of the eve nt s,

l e a d i n g to the d e v e l o p m e n t

c ondit io ns

of the report

"Academ ic F r e e d o m for S t u d e n t s at M i c h i g a n Sta te

University."
w h i c h went

I n c l u d e d are the p r o c e d u r e s

into its p r e p a r a t i o n an d final

and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
adoption.

The C o m m i t t e d G e n e r a t i o n
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y ,
h i g h e r educatio n,

like most

i n s t i t u t i o n s of

experienced a relatively

d u r i n g the 1 9 5 0 ’s.

ca l m p e r i o d

A l o n g wit h M c C a r t h y i s m came

an a t t i t u d e

of c a u t i o n and c o n s e r v a t i s m w h i c h was r e f l e c t e d

in the

student bodi es

Stud ent s

of co l l e g e s

t e n d e d to hold little

across

interest

the country.

for p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y or

social r e f o r m and t e n d e d only to devote t h e m s e l v e s
th e i r ow n studies,
some

evidence,

how ever,

d i r e c t i o n was b e i n g
to the extent

fri end s

and social

life.

at M i c h i g a n State

to

The re was

that

a new

sought by st u d e n t s to b e c o m e

in v o l v e d

of h a v i n g a g r e a t e r voice in t h e i r own
31

af fairs.

M a d i s o n Kuhn d e s c r i b e s

some of those

chan ges

that o c c u r r e d at M i c h i g a n State
As the [Student] C o u n c i l e x t e n d e d its ac t i v i t i e s ,
it r e o r g a n i z e d in 1951 to cre at e a str on g p r e s i ­
dent of student g o v e r nment , a congres s r e p r e s e n t i n g
l i vin g areas, a small j u d i c i a r y c o m p o s e d of
faculty and s t u d e n t s .1
Kuhn saw the j u d i c i a r y as an inte gr al part
disciplinary machinery

and notes

the D e a n of Stu de nts we re

that

act io ns

of the

im p o s e d by

only as a c o n f i r m a t i o n of the

j u d i c i a r y ’s decision.
In d e s c r i b i n g student

b e h a v i o r of this per iod,

Kuhn

states:
As a result of i m p r o v e d me a n s of e x p r e s s i n g student
senti me nt , l o n g - s t a n d i n g rules were r e l a x e d . . .
By a student vote in 1946, the t r a d i t i o n agai nst
sm o k i n g on campus, w h i c h had be e n v i o l a t e d w i t h
i n c r e a s e d f r e q u e n c y by r e t u r n e d ve ter ans, was
abandoned.
W i t h i n the yea r coeds were p e r m i t t e d
to smoke in d o r m i t o r y rooms.
R e s t r i c t i o n s on
student d r i v i n g wer e m o d i f i e d d e sp ite a g r o w i n g
c o n g e s t i o n on campus and d e sp it e an o b s e r v a t i o n
by the Dean of Stu dents that about 95 pe r cent of
the cases r e v i e w e d by this office are the resu lt
of stu dents w h o get into tro ub le in one wa y or
a n o t h e r whil e in a c a r , 2
Ku hn goes on to say:
In contrast, a new b o i s t e r o u s n e s s e r u p t e d at times
to th ro ttle t r af fi c on G r a n d R i ve r A v enue or to
send h u n d r e d s of m e n on a r a i d of w o m e n ’s d o r m i ­
tories . A l t h o u g h l e a d e r s h i p s e emed to come not
fr o m the v e t e r a n but f r o m the immature, the
p r e s e n c e of o n l o o k e r s c o n v e r t e d a small d e m o n s t r a ­
ti o n into an appa re nt mass move me nt .
Such

1M a d i s o n Kuhn,
Years (East Lansing:
1955), pp. ^58-459.
2Ibid.

M i c h i g a n State:
The First H u n d r e d
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y Press,

d i s t u r b a n c e s were ne i t h e r p r e c e d e n t e d nor unique
to M i c h i g a n State, but they pr ov e d deeply
embarrassing.3
D u r i n g the early

1960's

stu de nt s b e g a n to a p p e a r at

M i c h i g a n State with ne w and d iff er en t
to a uthori ty
society,

r e l a ti on ship s.

these

student s

of the ir education.

a t t i t u d e s rel ati ve

O f f s p r i n g of a mu ch differe nt

star te d to q u e s t i o n the relevanc e

Th e i r concerns

and c o m m i ttmen t began

to e x t e n d b e y o n d the civil r i g h t s m o ve me nt
Viet Nam.

and the wa r in

D i s i l l u s i o n e d wi th th e state of affa irs

and

d i s a p p o i n t e d in the c a p a b i l i t y of the adult

g e n e r a t i o n to

resolve the p robl em s,

they p l a c e d ex ce s s i v e

ex pecta ti on s

upon their u n i v e r s i t y

for the answers

to the p r o b l e m s of

society.
The first
mo ve men t

i n d i c a t i o n of a "formal"

activist

a p p e a r e d at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y in Ja nu ar y

of 1965.

A group w h i c h r e f e r r e d to its elf as the Com mi ttee

for Student
University

Rights

o r g a n i z e d for the p u r p o s e

reg ulat io ns .

In Fe b r u a r y

a p p r o v e d ten r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ,
p r obl em s

student

of c h angi ng

of 1965,

" d e a l i n g wi t h

specific

a r i s i n g from the U n i v e r s i t y ’s cur ren t

such matters

as student ho us ing,

o ff- campus

this group

stands on

enfo rc em en t of

University regulations
v io la t i o n s

and p r o c e d u r e s for p u n i s h m e n t
4
on and of f- c a m p u s . "
This was the first

of

3I b l d .
4

R e lea se by the C o m m i t t e e on Student
State U n i v e rs ity, Feb ru ary, 1965.

Rights,

Mi c h i g a n

organized a t t e m p t to strike d o w n some of the c o nc epts
p a t e r n a l i s m he ld

of

so lo ng by the Uni versity.

In o r d e r to adv ocate a move agai nst the U n i v e r s i t y ' s
’in loco p a r e n t i s ’ policies,
the

in the early

committee p u b l i s h e d a p a mp hl et

Matters i n v o l v i n g the refu sal

sp ri n g of 1965

entitle d,

of this

"Logos."

c om mitt ee to seek

re c o g n i t i o n by the U n i v e r s i t y by r e g i s t e r i n g w i t h student
government

as a student o r g a n i z a t i o n and the d i s t r i b u t i o n

methods u s e d for

"Logos," b r oug ht

of freedom of expression,
es ta bl ished channels,

to the

surface the

D e s i r i n g to w o r k outs ide

mem bers

of the commi tt ee

leaders

on the Comm it te e

man by the name

S c h i f f ’s I n v o l v e m e n t

and d i s t r i b u t i o n of "Logos"
impetus

for the

dis c i p l i n a r y p r o c e d u r e s
State Uni versity.
the Committee

One of

Righ ts was

a you ng

of Paul Schiff.

It w a s Mr.

the greatest

for Student

of the

openl y

d e f i e d the U n i v e r s i t y ’s d i s t r i b u t i o n reg ul at io ns .
the

issue

in the p u b l i c a t i o n

that e v e n t u a l l y bro ug ht

about

c o n s i d e r a t i o n and r e v i e w of

and student

righ ts

at M i c h i g a n

A lth ou gh he c on ti nu ed to be ac ti v e

for Student Righ ts ,

enrolled for s p ri ng t e r m of

1965-

Mr.

in

Sch iff was not

In June o f -1965,

Paul

Schiff app l ie d

for r e a d m i s s i o n as a g ra duate student

to

the Universi ty

for the

Puzak,

V i c e President

for Student A f fa irs r e f u s e d to ap p r o v e

S c h i f f ’s a p p l i c a t i o n
his

summer term of 1965.

John A.

for r e a d m i s s i o n on the grounds

of

conduct, w h i c h am o n g o t h e r things had to do w i t h the

35

Committe e

for Student Righ ts

and the p u b l i c a t i o n and d i s ­

tr i b u t i o n of "Logos,"
Mr.

Schiff a p p e a l e d to the F e de ra l Dist ri ct

Court

of

the W e s t e r n Distric t of M i c h i g a n c l a i m i n g that the U n i v e r ­
sity had d e nie d his

civil righ ts in that he was not g r an te d

r e a d m i s s i o n b e ca use of his p o l i t i c a l activities.
Un i v e r s i t y was d i r e c t e d by a panel
to present

to Mr.

The court o r d e r e d that

sp e c i f i c a t i o n s w e r e to be p r e s e n t e d
Mr.

federal judges

Sch iff a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the r e a so ns

his den ia l of readmi ss io n.

ten days.

of th re e

The

Schi ff wa s directed

to Mr.

for

these

Schiff w i t h i n

to r e s p o n d and ten days

after r e c e i v i n g his rep ly the U n i v e r s i t y was to h o l d a
hearing.

The court fur th er d i r e c t e d that

ing the h e a r i n g should

the body

fol low the p r o c e d u r e

conduct­

set forth by

the judges who h a n d e d do w n the de c i s i o n in Dixon v . .
5
Alabama.
The h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d by the F a c u l t y
on Student A f fai rs with
ing as its Chairman.
the Co mm i t t e e to

Professo r F r e d e r i c k Wil li am s

Car e fu l

insure

and cross
5

serv­

c o n s i d e r a t i o n was give n by

that the i n t e r e s t s

conc e r n e d wou ld be protected.
due p r oc es s

Co mm i t t e e

of all p a rti es

Such pr oc ed u r a l aspe ct s

as o p e n or closed hearing,

e x a m i n a t i o n of w i tn es ses

a t t o r n e y as

of

counsel,

had to be considered.

E x t r a c t e d from P r o f e s s o r W i l l i a m ’s Progress Report
on the Paul Schi f f Case, Dece mb er 1, 1965.
Minute s of
the F a c u l t y Com mitt ee on Student Affa irs , M i c h i g a n State
University.

36

The case of Dix on v. A l a b a m a ha d r e c o m m e n d e d a g ai nst an
open h e a r i n g and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , ^
The C o m m i t t e e made

it very

clear that

was to a d ju dg e in fact w h e t h e r Mr.

S c h i f f had v i o l a t e d

U n i v e r s i t y r e g u l a t i o n s and not w h e t h e r Mr,
st it ut ional rights had b e e n violated .

in conflict w i t h the

for the F e d e r a l

The h e a r i n g was

constitutional

court

Mr.

r e g u l atio ns

libe rt ies were

to decide.

1965.

C a re ful d e l i b e r a t i o n was

gi ve n to the te st i m o n y of all w i t n e s s e s

and to all exh i bi ts

c o m p r i s i n g the r e c o r d of hearing.

F a cul ty Co mm i t t e e

the

c o m m e n c e d on N o v e m b e r 9, 1965 and

co nc l u d e d on No v e m b e r 17,

and d o c u m e n t s

co n­

c o n s t i t u t i o n and w h e t h e r Mr.

Schiff had be e n d e n i e d his
mat ters

S c hi ff's

Further ,

Co mm i t t e e felt that w h e t h e r the U n i v e r s i t y
were

its m i s s i o n

found that on the basi s

The

of his

conduct

Schi ff had b e e n p r o p e r l y d e n i e d rea dm is si on .

ap pli ed and was g r ant ed r e a d m i s s i o n

He

for the w i n t e r

ter m of

1966,
The orde r d i r e c t i n g the U n i v e r s i t y
Schi ff a sta tement
ing was

of charges

to p r e s e n t

Mr,

an d p r o v i d e h i m wi th a h e a r ­

c onsi st en t with the d e c i s i o n s b e i n g h a n d e d down

in sim il ar

cases t h r o u g h o u t

the U n i t e d States,

Most

of

all it a l e r t e d the U n i v e r s i t y to the nee d for r e f o r m in
its s tr uc tu res

in d e a l i n g with

p e r t a i n i n g to the aca de mi c

student

conduct

and matt ers

f r e e d o m for students.

^D l x o n v. A l a b a m a , o p . c l t .

37

Advent

of the F r e e d o m Report

The r e a l i z a t i o n of the n e e d to study the rights
responsibilities

of students

and

at M i c h i g a n State was

r e fle ct ed a p p r o x i m a t e l y three w e e k s

after the c o n c l u s i o n

of the Sc hi f f case in the r e s o l u t i o n by the Aca de mic
Council of the U n i v e r s i t y

on D e c e m b e r 7, 1965:

The Acad em ic C o u n c i l r e c o g n i z e s the ne e d for a
c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e f o r m of the U n i v e r s i t y ' s rules and
structures d e al in g w i t h the acad emi c freedom of
students, i.e., wi t h f r e e d o m of speech, press and
as s o c i a t i o n on the campus w i t h p r o c e d u r a l due
process.
Such a r e f o r m has bec ome urg en t for the
foll o w i n g reasons:
(a)
The g r ow th of the U n i v e r s i t y and the d i v e r s i ­
ficati on of its func t i o n s have altered the
rela tion s b e t w e e n student s, facu lt y and
ad mi ni s t r a t i o n ;
(b)
Cha nges in the o u t l o o k of stu den ts have
g e n e r a t e d new pr o b l e m s which must be
h a n d l e d by a p p r o p r i a t e ed u c a t i o n a l
p ol ic ie s and d e m o c r a t i c pr act ice s; and
(c)
E x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s and campus i n s t i tu ti on s
app ea r to be i n s u f f i c i e n t l y c o o r d i n a t e d and
in part out of k e e p i n g with the current
ed u c a t i o n a l and soc ia l issues of the
U n i v e r s i t y .7
In the same r e s o l u t i o n it was r e c o m mende d that
Hoc C o mmit te e
stituted.

on the Aca dem ic

A m o n g the

the r e s o l u t i o n were:
current

an Ad

F r e e d o m of Students be

con­

charges a s s i g n e d to this Com m i t t e e
to make a general ass es sment

s i t u a t i o n and a s p i r a t i o n

of ac ademic

p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to any av ai l a b l e
to f ormul at e b r oad ob ject i v e s
policy w h i c h the u n i v e r s i t y

youth,

in

of the
paying

scientific e v i d e n c e ;

of e d u c a t i o n and d e m o c r a t i c

s h o u l d pursue in ha n d l i n g

7
R e s o l u t i o n of the A c ad emic Council of M i c h i g a n State
University, D e c e m b e r 7, 1965.
Min ut es on the Aca de mi c
Council, M i c h i g a n State Uni ve rs it y.

38

matters of acad emi c f r e e d o m for students;
pr op osa ls

and to formu lat e

for a c o m p r eh en sive re fo r m of e x i s t i n g u n i v e r s i t y

rules and structures r e l a t i n g to the

academic

f r e e d o m of

students.
El d o n R. N on na ma ker,

Ass oc iate

Dean of Students,

a p pe al ed to the Council to have the m a t t e r r e f er re d to
the duly co n s t i t u t e d s ta n d i n g co mmittee

for d e a l i n g wi th

student a f f a i r s .
Aft er cons id er ab le debate the m a t t e r was
the F a c u l t y Com mit tee on Student Affairs.

r e f e r r e d to

On D e c e m b e r 16,

1965 this C ommit te e d i s c u s s e d the cha rg e that had be e n
p l ace d in its hands.
Commi tt ee

Tentat ive ly,

it was p r o p o s e d that the

attempt to ma ke a pr ogr ess

report in m i d - F e b r u a r y

wh i c h w o u l d define the p r o b l e m and d e l i n e a t e the areas
wh i c h the Com mi tt ee p r o p o s e d to study.

It was pr o p o s e d

that a sec on d report might be sent to the Counc il at a
later date wh i c h would delin ea te tho se age nci es w h i c h
wou ld have to be es t a b l i s h e d to study those areas

identi­

fied in the previous r e p o r t .
D u r i n g the D e ce mb er 16 mee tin g,
of the F a cult y C o mm it tee
D. W illia ms ,

thr ough the C h a i r m a n

on Student Affairs,

Dr.

Frederick

Preside nt H a nn ah ex pr e s s e d by letter his

concern about the relat i o n s h i p s of students at Mic h i g a n
State U n i v e r s i t y with other members

of the U n i v e r s i t y c o m ­

munity and with those beyo n d the campus.

Some of the

considera ti on s pa ss e d on by Presi den t Hann ah to the

Faculty

C o m m i t t e e on St u d e n t Affa ir s may be

s u m m a r i z e d as

follows:
(a)

The c o n d i t i o n s und er w h i c h the U n i v e r s i t y was
o p e r a t i n g d i f f e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l y f r o m thos e
p r e v a i l i n g in the past, in part b e c a u s e the
so c i e t y the U n i v e r s i t y ser ve d had c h a ng ed in
many w a y s .

(b)

The n e c e s s i t y
"the a c a d e m i c

(c)

The n e c e s s i t y to d e f i n e the U n i v e r s i t y ' s
r e l a t i o n s h i p to the I n d i v i d u a l as a student
and as a citizen.

(d)

The n e c e s s i t y for the d e l i n e a t i o n of the kind
of rul es and r e g u l a t i o n s the U n i v e r s i t y should
have in light of its mission .

(e)

The n e c e s s i t y for e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o c e s s e s and
p r o c e d u r e s for the f o r m u l a t i o n of rules and
regulations.

(f)

The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those who sho ul d p a r t i c i ­
pate in the e n f o r c e m e n t of re g u l a t i o n s , the
m a n n e r of e n f o r c e m e n t and the s p e c i f i c a t i o n
of r e v i e w a n d app eal p roc edures.

(g)

The d i s c u s s i o n s and d e l i b e r a t i o n s of the entire
m a t t e r shou ld In clude stu de nt s an d faculty
g
m e m b e r s not n e c e s s a r i l y memb er s of the committee.

On J a n u a r y

19,

for a d e f i n i t i o n of the t e r m
f r e e d o m for s t u d e n t s . "

1966 J o h n C. M c Q u i t t y ,

B o ard of the A s s o c i a t e d Stud ents
sity,

directed

assistance

of M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r ­

a l e tter to C h a i r m a n W il li ams

of stu d en t

government

Cha i r m a n of the

o f f e r i n g the

in w h a t e v e r way the Com-

9

mittee

felt ap pr o p r i a t e .
g

Le tt e r fr o m P r e s i d e n t Ha nn a h to A s s o c i a t e Pr ofe ss or
F r e d e r i c k D. W i l l i a m s .
Minutes of the F a c u l t y C om mi ttee on
Student Aff a i r s , D e c e m b e r 16, 1965.
9

Let te r fr o m J o h n C. M c Qu it ty to P r o f e s s o r Fr ed e r i c k
W il li ams, Chai rman, F a c u l t y C o m m i t t e e on Stud ent Affairs,
J a n u a r y 19, 1966.
M i n u t e s of F a c u l t y C om m i t t e e on Student
Affairs, D e c e m b e r 20, 1966.

40
So it was that
became

faculty,

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and students

involved in the proc es s of d e a l i n g with the aca de mic

fr e e d o m for students.
On Janu ray

26, 1966,

P re side nt H a n n a h met w i t h the

Facu lt y Com mi tt ee on Student Affairs
the C o mmit te e the

and d i s c u s s e d wi t h

import ance of the charge w h ic h had been

p l ace d upon the C o m mi tt ee by the Aca de mi c
President Hann ah was h o p e f u l that
able to present

Council.

the Com mi tt ee w o u l d be

a final report by the end of sp ri n g t e r m . 1(^

The C o mm it te e met w i t h P ro fe ssor Philip M o n e y p e n n y
of the U n i v e r s i t y
Moneypenny

of Illinois

on J a nuar y

28.

Professor

cha ir ed the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y

Professors'

Comm ittee

Fa cu lt y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

S w h i c h p r e p a r e d the

"Statem ent

on

for the Aca demi c F r e e d o m of S t u ­

dents .
An initial press rele as e was made by the F a c u l t y
Commi tt ee
News

on Student Affa irs

of January

31, 1966.

sity of the assignm en t
Com mi tt ee

for p u b l i c a t i o n in the State

It gave notice to the U n i v e r ­

given by the A ca demi c

C o unci l to the

and o u t l i n e d the p r o c e d u r e s w h i c h the Com mi tt ee

p r o p o s e d to f o l l o w in c o n d u c t i n g the study i n c l u d i n g the
role students w e r e e x pecte d to play.

12

^ M i n u t e s , Fa cul ty C o m m i t t e e on Student Affairs,
J a nua ry 26, 1966.
■^C om mit te e
12

S Report,

op.

clt.

Press r e le as e by the F a cu lt y C o mm it te e
Affairs, State N e w s , J a nu ary 31, 1966.

on Student

The rel ea se

Informed the ac ademic

co mmunity

Committe e would divide into four sub-comm itt ees,
a special assignment.

The s u b - comm it te es

that

the

each wi t h

to be formed were:

(1)

The committee on Student Rights and R e s p o n s i ­
bi li tie s in the classroom.

(2)

The committee on Student Rights and R e s p o n s i ­
bi lities in a ct ivit ie s on and off campus.

(3)

The committ ee on Stu dent Records.

(4)

The committee on St udent Rights and R e s p o n s i ­
bi lit ies in D i s c i p l i n a r y Proceedings.

Each su b-co mm it te e was
The chairman of the Faculty

to be headed by a chairman.
Com mi ttee was to be a m e m b e r of

each of the sub-com mit tees w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
c oo r d i n a t i n g thei r activities.

Comparable

for

committ ees were

to be e s t a b l is he d by the A s s o c i a t e d Stu de nt s of M i c h i g a n
State Un iv ersi ty wi t h the c h a i r m e n of the student

sub­

committ ees

correspond­

s i tt in g with the F a cult y s u b - c o m m i t t e e

in g to their own.
Each su b- co mm it tee

c h a i r m a n was to be r e s p o ns ib le

(1)

C o m p i l i n g exis tin g rules and str uc tu res
r e l a t i n g to student rights and r e s p o n s i b i l i ­
ties in his as s i g n e d area of study.
If
i n f o r m a t i o n on such matt ers as ori gin of
rules, substance of rules, en for ce me nt p r o ­
cedures, and the like was u n c l e a r or n o n ­
existent, he was to indicate an d att empt to
def in e as ac curat el y as pos s i b l e actu al
current practices in such cases.

(2)

C o o r d i n a t i n g the w o r k of his com mitt ee with
that of the c om parab le student group.

(3)

C a l l i n g and l e ad ing the m eet in gs of his c o m ­
mit tee and r e p o r t i n g the resu lts to the
pa re nt committee.

for:

42

(4)

C o n d u c t i n g at least one open h e a r i n g in
whi ch in te re s t e d members of the staff could
place before the com mi tt ee relevant c r i t i ­
cisms and/or proposals.

The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
Committee on Student

of the C h a i r m a n of the Faculty

Affairs

as outline d

in the press

release were:
(1)

To sit wit h each of the s u b - c o m m i t t e e s and
pa r t i c i p a t e in their acti v i t i e s as m u c h as
possible.

(2)

To assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for c o o r d i n a t i n g
an d ex pe d i t i n g the wo r k of all sub-committ ees ,
student as well as faculty,

(3)

To be re s p o n s i b l e for press rel ease s
ac tiv it ie s of the committee.

The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l chart on page
w i t h the above information.
On Feb ruary
Academic

8, 1966

43 was rel e a s e d

13

Cha irman Wi l l i a m s p re sente d the

Counc il with a pro gress

report.

comments he ela bo ra te d on a concept
wh i c h was

in the

In his ope nin g

of academic

to pr ovide a basic ph ilo so ph y

freed om

for the report:

Before e n u m e r a t i n g our a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s an d plans
to date, I wish to ac qu aint you with the frame of
refer en ce we pro pos e to utilize, at least tenta tiv ely,
as we und er ta ke our r e vi ew and study.
All of you
doubtless realize that on cam puses across the nation
the m a tt er of academic freedom for students is
ge n e r a t i n g great controversy.
L i t e r a t u r e on this
subject reveals at once how wide ly students and
accompli sh ed scholars differ in their d e fi ni ti ons of
the term.
Some insist that 'academic fre e do m for
students'is the equ iv al ent of civil libert ies , in
that it obligat es a u niv ersity to exercise e x t r a ­
ordinary restraint in gov er nin g the conduct of stu­
dents,
Some content that the t e r m m ea n s only 'the
right to learn,' others ma i n t a i n that it means

13 Press release to State News, Janu ary 31, 1966.

F A CUL TY C OMMI TT EE ON S T U D E N T AFFAIRS
SUB-CO M M I T T E E S

CLASSROOM RIGHTS
AND R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S

A CT IV ITIES ON
AND OFF CAMPUS

CLASSROOM
ADVISEME NT
COURSES
ATTEND AN CE
LIBRARY

OR G A N IZ AT IONS
SPEAKERS
PU B L I C A T I O N S
DI ST R I B U T I O N S
ROOMS & E QUI PM EN T
OFF CAMPUS A CT IV IT IES

RECORDS
ACADEMIC
PLAC E M E N T
C OU NS ELING
RES c HALLS
DIS C I P L I N A R Y

PR OC E D U R E FOR
DISCIPLINARY
PROCEE DI NGS
CHARGES
HEARING
APPEALS
H A N D B O O K OF RULES
INVE S T I G A T I O N OF
CONDUCT

THE CHAI RMA N OF THE F A C U L T Y CO MMI TTEE
IS A M E M B E R OF ALL SU B- CO MMIT TE ES
WHOSE WO R K HE SH AL L CO ORD IN AT E
CLAS SR OO M AC TIV I T I E S

A S S O C I A T E D S T UDENT OF M I C H I G A N STATE

R E CO RDS

THE BOARD OF AS M S U SHALL, T H ROU GH PRO CE DU RES
IT DEEM S AP PR OPRI ATE , ST UD Y THE RULES AND
ST RU CT U R E S R E L A T I N G TO STU D EN T RIGH TS AND
RESPONS IBI LITIES.
ALL STU DENTS SHA LL BE
GIVEN AN OP P O R T U N I T Y TO EX PR ESS THEI R VIEWS.
AFTER COM PL E T I N G THE STUDY, THE BOARD SHALL
REPORT ITS FIN DING S IN D E T AI L AND W I T H S U P ­
PORT IN G E V I D E N C E TO T H E F A CU LT Y C OM MITTE E ON
STUDE NT AFFAIRS, W H I C H SHALL P A R T I CI PA TE IN
ALL PHASES OF THI S STUDY.

PRO CE DU RES

students
have the right to be tre ate d i n t e l l i ­
gently,' and sti ll others insist that there is no
such thing as 'academic f r e ed om for students.'
After c o n s i d e r i n g these and other views on the
subject, the committ ee be lieves that it is most
meani n g f u l and realist ic to regard 'academic
fr ee do m for students' as a term w h i c h refe rs to
students' righ ts a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . But the
pr o b l e m now is to define those rights and responsiblities.
In so doing, it would s e e m re asonab le
to cons ide r first of all the pur po se and function
of a university.
S p eak in g g e n e r a l l y a uni ve rsity ex is t s to serve
society, an d its primary function is the advancement
and d i s s e m i n a t i o n of knowledge.
S t u d e n t s are p r i ­
marily c o nc er ned wi t h study an d learnin g, and
certainly they have a right to do both.
Ac cor ding ly
a unive rs it y shou ld dedicate itself to the p romo ti on
of learning, not only in the classroom, but e v e r y ­
where on campus.
That this can be a c c o m p l i s h e d best
where fr ee dom and order prevail_Jj3 b e y o n d question.
The dif fi cu lt y, o f course, is to st ri ke a proper
balance b e t w e e n the two.
Each is essential.
Free­
dom wit ho ut o r d e r leads to chaos, a n d undue emphasis
on order r e sul ts in fettered freedom.
The committee
th ere fore b e l i e v e s that the most v a l i d princip le to
observe t h r o u g h o u t its study is m a x i m u m freedom and
ne ces sary o r d e r , for rules and s tru ctures which adher e
to 'that p r i n c i p l e are best designed to prom ote the
pri ma ry f unct io n of the U n i v e r s i t y .14
P ro fe ss or Willi am s also informed the Council of the
C om mittee 's a c c o mp lish me nt s
pro ced ure

to date w h i c h included:

the C o m m i t t e e was to follow;

ex te nde d to mem ber s

of the campus

L a ns in g community to
the ass ig nme nt

of the

p a r t i c u l a r aspects

submit

invitation

communi ty and the G r e a t e r

letters e x p r e s s i n g their views;

sub-committees to dea l wi th the

of the study;

d i s t in gu is hed faculty

the

the

consultants

and the

incl usi on of four

to assist

the Committee.

14 Report to the Academic Council by Professor
Fr ede ri ck Williams, Chairman,
Affairs, F e br ua ry 8 , 1 9 6 6 ,

Faculty C o m m i t t e e on Student

45

After sev eral m e e ti ng s of the s u b - co mm it tees g u i d e ­
lines on student rights and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were e s t a b ­
lished against w h i c h to test the su bsta nce
or a decision,,
passed

of a r eg ul at ion

In the M a r c h 4th m e e t i n g the C o mmitt ee

a m o t i o n to present

these rev is ed and ap p r o v e d

g uid elines wi th an intr od ucto ry
further d i r e c t i o n and study.

statement as a basis

It was

for

f u rt her m o v e d that

Pr of e s s o r Kill i n g s w o r t h d e v el op a stateme nt , w h i c h w i t h
g uid elines w o u l d be pr es e n t e d as a p r o g r e s s report
te nt ati ve document.
was to become Articl e

This document
I of the

and a

with subsequ ent r e v i s i o n s

"Fr ee do m Rep ort."

15

At the d irec ti on of the Fac ul ty Co mm i t t e e on Student
Affairs,

on A p r i l

21, 1966 Cha i r m a n W il li am s d i s t r i b u t e d to

all members of the Univers it y Senate
copies

of three tentat ive

gu ide li ne s w h i c h had been p r e ­

pared by the s u b c ommi tt ee s

and ap p r o v e d by the Committee:

On Student Right s and Duties
Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
Records

lines,

(Article I);
(Article

at M i c h i g a n State U ni ve rsit y

In the

(tenured faculty)

II);

On Acad em ic
and On Student

(Article

III).

letter of e x p l a n a t i o n a c c o m p a n y i n g the g u i d e ­

P ro fe ssor Williams

stated:

It should be clearly und er s t o o d that the Committee
on Student Affairs is n e i t h e r r e v i s i n g exis ti ng
r egul at io ns nor w r i t i n g new ones.
The Committ ee is
re vi e w i n g and e v a l u a t i n g the U n i v e rs it y's r e g u l ation s
and struct ure s r e l a t i n g to academic f r ee do m for
students.
15

Minutes of the Facu lty
Affairs, M ar c h 4, 1 9 6 6 .

Committee

on Student

Af te r sev eral m e e t i n g s d e v o t e d to p r o c e d u r a l
consid er a t i o n s , the C o mm it te e d e c i d e d that its
first m a j o r step was to e s t a b l i s h guidelines.
Then, once that task had b e e n ac co m p l i s h e d , the
w o r k of t e s t i n g e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s against
the gu ide line s, and the gu id e l i n e s aga inst the
re gu la ti ons, wou ld be und ertaken.
The Comm ittee has n o w w r i t t e n three sets of
gu ide li ne s a n d is t e s t i n g t h e m and e x i s t i n g
r e g u l a t i o n s an d recordr-keeping policie s.
This
is b e i n g a c c o m p l i s h e d by m e m b e r s of the Committ ee,
w o r k i n g in teams of two or three, w h o are i n t e r ­
vi e w i n g offi ci als o f - a l l - U n i v e r s i t y ag enc ie s or
s u b - d i v i s i o n s that have e i the r r e g u l a t i o n s or
records , or both.
After c o m p l e t i n g these i n t e r ­
views, C om mi ttee me m b e r s e v a l u a t e the r e g u l a t i o n s
and/or r e c o r d - k e e p i n g p o l i c i e s .16
Also in the

letter of e x p l a n a t i o n P r of es so r W i ll ia ms

s o l i c i t e d s ugg es ti on s

and cri ti ci sms r e l a t i v e to the three

pro p o s e d guidelines.

Sev era l fac ult y m e m b e r s r e s p o n d e d

wi t h sugge st io ns
a d di tion to the

for c o n s i d e r a t i o n and revision.

In

faculty the views of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were

sought.
Prior to the F a c u l t y
w o r k on the report,

Committ ee

on Student A f fa ir s

a student j u d i c i a r y

evaluation commit­

tee, a p p o i n t e d by the A s s o c i a t e d St ude nt s of M i c h i g a n
State Uni ve rs it y,

had been in the p r o c e s s of e v a l u a t i n g

and m a k i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
s tr uc tu re and pr oce d u r e s
This

commit tee ,

Fa cu lty

for the r e v i s i o n of the j ud ic ia l

r e l a t i n g to student

toge ther wi t h a p p o i n t e d m e mb er s of the

Co mm i t t e e on Stud ent Aff airs,

on j u d i c i a l pro ce ss and proced ur es.

■ ^ Let te r sent to Facu lt y

1966 .

government.

fo rm e d a s u b - c o m m i t t e e
The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

Senate Mem bers ,

Ap r i l 21,

of

47

this s u b - c o m m i t t e e were d e v e l o p e d into Ar t i c l e IV of the
Report.

Of special

IV p r o v i d e d

s i g n i f i c a n c e is the fact

for the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a s t u d e n t - f a c u i t y

ju dic ia ry w h i c h was

given s e ve ra l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

a d d i t i o n to h e ar ing cases
duct regulations.

of v iol at io ns

groups who object

of student

fr om stu den ts

con­

or student

to the r u l i n g of a lower jud i c i a l body,

or who have asked to ap pe a r before
bee n d e n i e d a hearing,

such a body and have

or fro m students

or student groups

who are a p p e a l i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e de ci s i o n s
In addition,

ass ign ed the

in

The S t u d e n t - F a c u l t y J u d i c i a r y was

ass ig ned to c o n si de r appeals

nature.

that Arti cle

of a d i s c i p l i n a r y

the Student F a culty J u d i c i a r y was

re s p o n s i b i l i t y

of r e v i e w i n g the s ubst an ce of

a r e g u l a t i o n or an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n whi c h is
all ege d to be i n c o n si sten t w i t h the g u i d e l i n e s in Article
I ("Student
("Academic
("Student

Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " ) ,
Rights

R eco rds"),

tions").1 ^
the charge
urgent

an d R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " ) ,
and Art ic le VI

Arti cl e II
Article

("Student

"to e s t a b l i s h p r o c e d u r a l rules

cases

infrin ge me nt
III an d

Publica­

Also the Student Faculty Ju di c i a r y was

given

for e x p e d i t i n g

in w h i c h it is al l e g e d that a r e g u l a t i o n or

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n thr ea te ns im me d i a t e

II,

III

and i r r e p a r a b l e

on stud ent righ ts as d e fi ne d by A r ti cl es
IV of the Re po rt."

1 ft

17

If the Student

Faculty

Report on the " Ac ad em ic F r e e d o m for Stu dents
Mi c h i g a n State U n i v e rs it y, " M a r c h 16, 1967.
A r ti cle
1 ^0 p . c l t ., Article

4.3

4.6.

I,

at
4.3 4,6.

Judiciary

d e c i d e d that

or group r e s p o n s i b l e

such was

for e n f o r c i n g the

tion or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
po s t p o n e

the case,

de c i s i o n

the

challenged regula­

could be r e q u e s t e d to

or w i t h d r a w such action.

So it was that the F a cu lt y Comm it te e
Affairs bu i l t

into the Report

student rig ht s p r o p e r l y

defi ne d

in the report

or d i s a g r e e m e n t

for the r e s o l v i n g

of the F a c u l t y

new d i m e n s i o n in s t u d e n t - u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t i o n s

sion,

could be

thro ug h o r d e r l y p r o c e d u r e s .

D u r i n g the d e l i b e r a t i o n s

consideration.

those

cou ld be

of r e g u l a t i o n s

In add iti on p r o v i s i o n s were ma d e

of conflict

on Student

a process w h e r e b y

Insured a n d the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s
tested.

individual

C h a i r m a n Williams,

C om mi tt ee

a

came un d e r

af t e r inf o r m a l d i s c u s ­

pr es e n t e d the Co mm itt ee wi t h a p r o p o s i t i o n

for the

e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a u n i v e r s i t y off ic ia l r e f e r r e d to as an
Ombudsman,

Williams'

ori gi nal

siderably by the Committee,
report to the A c ad em ic
resp o n s i b i l i t i e s
that eve nt ually
with little

However,

Council

before

in June,

it beca me
19

o ff i c i a l

incorporated

the C o m m i tte e' s

the d e s c r i p t i o n

of this office had be e n

revision.

a high p re stige

p ro p o s a l was r e v i s e d c o n ­

and

so well d e f i n e d

in A r t i c l e VIII

The O m b u d s m a n was p e r c e i v e d to be
sel ec te d fr om the

sen io r facu lty

with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

of h e a r i n g and r e s o l v i n g c om pl ai nt s

and grievances-.

to be given rea d y a c ces s

univer si ty
19
Affairs,

He was

officials

fro m the

Pres ident

Mi nu te s of the Fac ult y C ommit te e
Tue s d a y , S ep te mb er 20, 1968.

to all

on down.
on Student

In su m m a r i z i n g this new a n d unique office
first years experi enc e,
U ni versit y,

Dr.

after the

the O m b u d s m a n at Mic h i g a n State

James Rust, made

the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v at io ns

. . . the O m b u d s m a n at M i c h i g a n State deals with
pr oblems and gr ie va nces of many differe nt kinds.
Many arise fr om m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g or human
fallibility.
Some arise f r o m attempt s by clerks
and secretar ies to deal w i t h matters they are not
really q uali fi ed to handle.
Many, of course, turn
out to be g ro un dl ess when care fu ll y investigated.
Ne ve rthele ss, the fact that there was someone to
w h o m the student cou ld appe al is of co ns id erab le
importance.
In the best of worlds, ther e wou ld be no need
for an ombudsman, for all publ ic servants and all
faculty me mb er s and e mp lo yees of u n i v e r s i t i e s would
be d o i n g thei r jobs perfectly.
Until that world
arrives, however, t r o u b l e - s h o o t e r s , w h e t h e r calle d
om bu d s m a n or not, will be n e e d e d . 20
S i m u l tane ou s
by the

to the c o n s idera ti on s

s ub -c om mitte e on ju d i c i a l

a subc omm ittee was

bein g u n d e r t a k e n

structure and p ro ce du res,

in the proc ess of d r a w i n g up r e c o m m e n d a ­

tions r e l a t i n g to the State N e w s , the student newsp ap er ,
and student pu bl ications .
with the

Board of Student

This

subc omm ittee w o r k e d closely

Publicati ons

and co ns u l t e d with

such persons

as the Chai rm an of the Greater L a n s i n g Branch

of the Civil

Libe rti es

consul tan ts

on campus who were

student

publ ic atio ns

dations

put

ex ten si ve

Union,

the U ni ve rs it y at t o r n e y and
fami lia r with the topic of

and their distribution.

forth by this

re visi ons and

The r e c o m m e n ­

su bco mmi ttee were to und er go

later to become Arti cl e VI of the

Report.

20

Brochure p r e p a r e d by the Ombudsman,
Univer sit y, 1968.

Michigan

State

50

At the same time a sub c o m m i t t e e was
up r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

for pr oced u r e s

to for mulate reg ul a t i o n s
E s s e n tial ly
all levels
tions.

Further,

government

conduct.

for involv eme nt

of

in f o r m u l at in g r e g u l a ­

it pr o v i d e d the m e ch anics
bet ween the Student

to wo r k out
Board of the

Students of M i c h i g a n State Un ive r s i t y

Faculty Com mi tt ee
tions.

g o v e r n i n g student

governm ent

points of d is ag re ement
A ss oc iated

for student

it p r o v i d e d the stru ct ure
of student

at wor k dra wing

and the

on Student A f fa ir s over pro p o s e d r e g u l a ­

The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

were subject to little

p r e s e n t e d by this

subcom mi ttee

re v i s i o n and eve nt ual ly became

Article V.
With the a d d i t i o n of a s e ct io n on the pro ce dure

for

re vi si ng and a m e n d i n g the guide l i n e s and a section on
general r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

i n c l u d i n g the o r i e n t a t i o n of new

students r e g a r d i n g their rights
was

and duties,

the report

comple te d by the Fa cu lty C om mitte e on Student Affairs

for p r e s e n t a t i o n to the Aca de mi c
In the
Affairs

Council

on June

i n t r o du ctio n the Facult y Co mmittee

gave a b r ie f d e s c r i p t i o n of the Report.

8, 1 9 6 6 .
on Student
This

in t r o d u c t i o n wi th the del e t i o n of the seco nd paragraph,
which de sc r i b e d those
the Committee,
It read as

specific

tasks

left u nf in is hed by

was to become the preface

follows:

to the Report.

51

The F a c u l t y Committee on Student Affairs p r e p a r e d
this re po r t after an e xte nsive and intensive r e v i e w
and study of the Un i v e r s i t y ' s rules and st ruct ure s
rel a t i n g to academic f r eedo m for students.
The
report re com m e n d s gui de li ne s w h i c h represent the
C o m m i t t e e ’s attempt to identify rights and dutie s
of st u d e n t s in regard to conduct, academic p u r ­
suits, the keeping of records, and pub lic ations.
It p r o p o s e s structures and p r o c e d u r e s for the
f o r m u l a t i o n of regulations g o v e r n i n g student c o n ­
duct, for the in terpr et at io n and amendment of the
guidel in es, for the a d j u d i c a t i o n of student d i s c i ­
plin ar y cases, and for c h a n n e l i n g to the faculty
and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n student c om pl ai nts and concerns
in the acad em ic area.
The repor t also con tains a
section of general r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on a n u mber of
important subjects.
We wi s h to caution against one pos si bl e kind of
m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of our rec om me ndat io ns .
In some
respects, what we propose r e p r e s e n t s major changes
in p r e s e n t policies, str uctures, and pro cedures.
But that is not true of all of our proposals.
In
some importa nt respects, our re c o m m e n d a t i o n s simply
make exp licit what has long bee n underst oo d a nd
p r a c t i c e d at Mi ch igan State University.
Alt h o u g h the C o m m i t t e e ’s study cen tere d on a c a de mi c
fr e e d o m for students, we made no attempt to f or m u l a t e
a ge n e r a l and abstract d e f i n i t i o n of that term, or
to e x p l a i n it in an i n t e rpre ti ve essay.
Ins tea d we
have d i r e c t e d our energie s to the form ul at io n of an
op e r a t i o n a l d ef in it io n and co nc rete a p p l i c a t i o n of
the concept.
This report i dent if ie s rights an d duties
of stu de nt s and pro vides for t h e m a carefully p r e ­
scribed s y s t e m of sub stan ti ve and pr oce dur al due
process; and we submit these gui delines, stru ctu res,
and p r o c e d u r e s as a tes tament of the C o m m i t t e e ’s
concept of academic f r ee do m for s t u d e n t s , 21
Of p a r t i c u l a r note

in the

in tr o d u c t i o n is the p a r a ­

graph c a l l i n g att ention to the fact that
me ndat i o n s

c ont ai ne d in the report were

ment of p r i n c i p l e s

21

some of the r e c o m ­
simply a r e s t a t e ­

long pr ac t i c e d at Mic h ig an State

Preface to the report on the "Academic F r e e d o m
for Stu dents at Michig an State U ni ve rs ity."

University.

So it was that

such implied

student rights

long re cogn i z e d at M i ch igan State U n i v e r s i t y became
explicit.
The report
Affairs,

of the F a cu lt y C omm it te e on Student

entitled,

"Academic F r e e d o m for Students at

M i ch ig an State U n i v e r s i t y , " was r ec ei ve d by the Aca dem ic
Council on June

7, 1966.

The C o un ci l moved to have the

St e e r i n g Committe e of the Aca demic
pe ri od assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
from memb ers of the academic
pa rtic u l a r the areas
report,

community,

and for p r e p a r i n g m at er ia ls

begin in September.
D u rin g the

for i d e n t i f y i n g in

agreement

in the

in a form w h i c h would

of the Council s c h e d u l e d to

22

summer of 1966 the Academic S t e e r i n g Co m­

c on si de re d the report

tions on to the Facu lty

and fo rw a r d e d its r e c o m m e n d a ­

Commit te e on Student A f f a i r s .

S ep te mb er 19, the re c o m m e n d a t i o n s
were

summer

for re ce i v i n g opi nions

of sig nific an t

facilit ate the de li b e r a t i o n s

mittee

Council over the

taken under ad vise men t

On

of the St e e r i n g Com mi tt ee

by the Fac ul ty Com m it te e

on

Student A f f a i r s . 2 ^
On Sep te mb er 21,
Ac ade mic

Council was

express purpose

22

1966 a special m e e t i n g of the

called by Pr esi dent

of co n s i d e r i n g the Report.

Minutes of the Aca de mi c Council,
Un iversity , June 7, 1966.
2^
Affairs,

Hannah for the
Dr.

John F. A.

M i chig an

State

Minutes of the Fac ul ty Commi tt ee on Student
M ic hi ga n State Univers ity , September 19, 1966.

53

Taylor,

Ch a i r m a n of the S t e e r i n g Comm it te e,

his committ ee
acad em ic

had so li c i t e d o p ini on s

comm un ity

of d i s a g r e e m e n t

F a cul ty

wit h the report.

At that time he s u b m i t t e d ,

Wi ll iam s,

on Student Affairs ,

the C o u n c i l w i t h su gg e s t e d changes.
was

in general ag re emen t

r e vis io ns were made.
that

of the

for c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the Council.

co n c u r r e n c e of Dr.
Co mm itte e

from m e m b e r s

for I d e n t i f y i n g in p a r t i c u l a r the areas

a set of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
With the

r e p o r t e d that

C h a i r m a n of the
Dr. T a y l o r p r e s e n t e d
The S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e

with the repo rt and only mi n o r

One e x c e p t i o n existed,

how ever,

and

r e l a t e d to the whole q u e s t i o n of student p u b l i c a t i o n s .

The S t e e r i n g Comm i t t e e

r e c o m m e n d e d that

be form e d to r e v i e w this diff ic ul t
tions.

However,

Council by Dr.

Charles

Affairs,

that

the var io us

students

pub licat io ns .

around the many

it was

Minutes

21, 1966.

imp orta nt

that
be

fo l l o w e d in w h i c h que s t i o n s

degr ees

of f r e e d o m w h i c h should

in e x p r e s s i n g the i r views t h r o u g h

In a d d i t i o n much d i s c u s s i o n c e n t e r e d

legal an d t e c h n i c a l

pro bl em s

the r e l a t i o n s h i p of such p u b l i c a t i o n s

24

to the

on stud en t p u b l i c a t i o n s not

A len gthy d i s c u s s i o n

were r a i s e d about

various

area of student p u b l i c a ­

K i l l i n g s w o r t h , c onsu lt an t

the s e ct ion of the Report

be a c c o r d e d the

co mm i t t e e

it was brou gh t to the a t t e n t i o n of the

Co mm i t t e e on St udent

separated.

an ad hoc

In v o l v e d in

and the Un ive rsity.

of the Ac a d e m i c C o un ci l Mee ting,

2k

September

It was m o v e d by the
c e rni ng the State
to the C om mi ttee

News

C o un ci l to refer the m a tter c o n ­

and other student

on Stud ent

Dr. J o h n H. Reinoeh l,

Affairs

in p rinc ip le
respect

m o v e d that the C o un ci l a p p r o v e

to the f r e e d o m and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of students
publicatio ns.

At the S e p t e m b e r

Report.

dent H a n n a h that

in

25

27th m e e t i n g of the C o u n c i l

e x p r e s s e d over the

c o n s i d e r i n g the

for the

c h a i r m a n of the

the p o s i t i o n taken by the Com m i t t e e with

regard to student

cern was

ba c k

for re co n s i d e r a t i o n .

the newly e l e c t e d

Committe e on Stu de nt Affa irs,

publications

some

speed of the d e l i b e r a t i o n s

con­

in

The C o unc il was a s s u r e d by P r e s i ­

he w i s h e d only to keep the m o m e n t u m g o i n g

c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the Repo rt and that

should come about

its ac ce p t a n c e

only afte r t h o r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n and d e l i b -

26
eration.
At that

same m e e t i n g the C h a i r m a n of the S t e e r i n g

Committee p r e s e n t e d the Council w i t h a n u m b e r of r e c o m m e n d a ­
tions

for r e v i s i o n of the Report.

item by

item and

r ec o m m e n d a t i o n s

line by line.
p r e s e n t e d to the

of the C om mitt ee

on Student

to the

Comm i t t e e

in light

of the

recommendations,

co ns i d e r e d

It should be n o t e d that
Cou ncil had the

Affairs.

r e tu rn ed

^ Qp.

The Report was

The Report

on Student A f fair s

the

c o n c u r re nc e
was t h e n

for r e v i s i o n

and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s yet

clt.

P
^Minutes
27, 1966.

of the Ac ade mic

Cou nc il Mee t in g,

S ep tembe r

to be co nsi der ed,

w i t h the u n d e r s t a n d i n g that the Report

would be re t u r n e d to the A ca de mi c
con sideration.

27

In the O c to be r
the C o un ci l

C o un ci l for further

11th m e e t i n g of the Aca d e m i c

Council

c o n s i d e r e d the r e m a i n i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s wh i c h

c om p l e t e d the charge of the S t e e r i n g C ommi tt ee to receive,
order and tra nsm it

the

faculty re sp o n s e s to the Report.

The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s made

28

by the Aca d e m i c Cou nc il

d u ri ng the fall m e e t i n g s were tak en un d e r a dv is em ent by
the F a cul ty

C o mm it tee

to be gen er al

on Student

Affairs.

co n c u r r e n c e on the part

There

a p pea re d

of the Fac ul ty C o m ­

mittee on Student A f fa ir s w i t h the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ref er re d
to the

Com mi tt ee by the A c a d e m i c

Council.

However,

the a r e a of student p u b l i c a t i o n s the F a c u l t y
Student Affairs had r e a f f i r m e d

Coun ci l for purposes

at the No ve r m b e r
Report

8 meeting.

Report was

matt ers

were heard.

27

Mi nutes
29, 1966.

28

Minu tes

11 , 1 9 6 6 .

Conc ern s

by the mem be rs

Also President

a c c e p t e d by the

Re sp o n s e s were made

Committee.

in the report

on

of d i s c u s s i o n by its members

by the Ch a i r m e n of the E d u c a t i o n a l

and F a c u l t y Affairs

Commi tt ee

its e a r l i e r position.

A r e vis ed v e r s i o n of the
Aca de mic

in

to the

Policies Committee
over s ubs ta nt iv e

of the Aca demic

Council

H a n n a h made a nu mb e r of

of the A ca demi c

Coun cil Meeting,

Septe mbe r

of the Aca d e m i c

Council Meeting ,

October

suggeste d changes
Committee.

in the Report

for c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the

29

The As so c i a t e d Studen ts of M i c h i g a n State U nive rs it y
co ns id e r e d the r e v i s e d Nove mb er ve r s i o n
forwar de d a document
Faculty

and

of sug ge st ed rev is ions to the

Comm ittee on Student

Affairs.

to the sug ge st ed ame nd m e n t s James
the A ss oc i a t e d

of the Report

Stu den ts

In the i n t r o d u c t i o n

M. Graham,

C h a i r m a n of

stated th e following:

The A s s o c i a t e d Student s of M i c h i g a n State
Un iv er s i t y have spent a good deal of time these
two weeks in c o n s i d e r i n g the r e v i s e d Academi c
F r e e d o m Report of the F a c u l t y Co mmi ttee on
Student Affairs.
The e n c l o s e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
are the product of hours of serious th ought and
d i s c u s s i o n over c e rtai n sections of the report.
You will noti ce that our ma j o r c o n c e r n is over
student r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in the aca demic area.
Basically, how ev er , the St ude nt B o ar d supports
the. entire report as a truly pr og re s s i v e step in
student involvement.
It is our hope that the
report will be adopted, i n c o r p o r a t i n g our r e c o m ­
me nda ti on s .30
Thus,

in the

there t e nd ed to be
students

final stages

of d e v e l o p i n g the Report

some area of di sagreemen t.

it was the article

and r e s po ns ibil it ie s.

They

d e a l i n g w i t h academic rights
c onte nd ed that

pa tl on should be e x p a n d e d in the areas
stration,
and that
29

advising,

c l a s s r o o m conduct

the report ha d made

Minutes

With the

student p a rt ic l

of ac ade mic a d m i n i ­
a n d course content

little p r o v i s i o n

of the Academic

Council

for such

Mee ting,

No v e m b e r

1966.
30

"A Report of Sugg e s t e d R e v i s i o n s of the A s s o c i a t e d
Students of M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y to the F a c ul ty C o m ­
mittee on Student Affai rs ," November, 1966.

57

par tic ipa ti on .
concern s that

On the other hand some facu lty ex pr e s s e d
c o m m i ttm en ts

this area w h i c h at

some

h ad bee n made

future date

find imp os s i b l e to fulfill.

This

ex pr e s s e d t h r o u g h the ev e n t u a l
d e a l i n g wi t h the p r o f e s s i o n a l

publications

sen timent

seemed to be

in cl u s i o n of the s e ct io n
rights of the faculty.

for the m a n a g e m e n t

and conduct

b e y o n d the classroom.

of student
of rights,

of students to cover areas

It sho ul d be noted that every attempt

had been made to p u b l i c i z e th e various ver s i o n s
Report

of the

and other doc u m e n t s r e l a t i n g to the Report

State News

For

c o nc er n had to do

and the e x t e n s i o n of the statem ent

responsibilities

in

the Un iver s i t y might

the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n the area of greatest
wi th the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

to students

so that all me m b e r s

in the

of the U n i v e r s i t y w o u l d be

informed and wou l d have the o p p o r t u n i t y to c omm un ic at e to
the F a c u l t y

Co mm i t t e e on Student Affairs.

D e l u g e d wit h such r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
on Student

Affairs

had the arduous

m u n i c a t i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g

the Faculty C o mmitt ee

task of screening,

such concerns.

31

com-

In light of

the re vi s i o n s made wi th the c on curre nc e of the Acad em ic
Coun ci l and the comm ents
commit tee s,

student

Comm it te e on Student
the Report
31

rece iv ed

fr o m the

several

go ve r n m e n t and individuals,
Affairs

faculty

the Fac ulty

p r e p a r e d a secon d r e v i s i o n of

and s u b m i t t e d it to the Ac a d e m i c

Council

Minutes of the F a c u l t y Co mmit tee on Student
M i c h i g a n State U ni ve rs it y, N o v e m b e r 10, 1966.

for

Affairs,

c o n s i d e r a t i o n on December 6, 1966.
the Academic

A special m e e t i n g of

C o un ci l was called on J a nu ar y

pri ma ry p u rp os e

of co nsi der ing the Repor t

4, 1967
.

In o r d e r to

ex ped ite the m a t t e r of co n s i d e r i n g the Report the
p roce du re s were

est abli sh ed by the Ac a d e m i c

for the

following

Council.

32

a.

The Co uncil was to r e m a i n in continuous
session, m e e t i n g daily unt il the final
d i s p o s i t i o n of the report could be gained.

b.

Fou r members of the C o m m i t t e e on Student
Aff airs, whose app o i n t m e n t s had expired,
were req ue st ed to con tinue in a c o n s ul tativ e
ca p a c i t y to the Council.

c.

An i nv it a t i o n was e x t e n d e d to the off icers
of the student government to make a formal
p r e s e n t a t i o n of their views.

After an ex pl an at ion p re s e n t e d by the Ch a i r m a n of the
Student Affa irs
re vi se d Report
item.

Committee

of the

changes made in the

the Council co ns i d e r e d the report

The f o l l o w i n g signif ic ant

i t e m by

a me nd me nts were ma d e

d u r i n g the four days of d e l i b e r a t i o n by the Aca de mi c
C o u n c i l :^
a.

As a frame of reference, i n c l u d i n g a social
basis for student action, a pre amble was
a dd e d to the Report.

b.

The role of the Committee on Academic R i gh ts
and Respon si bi li ties of Stu dents which ha d
be e n es ta blis he d by the repo rt was clarified.

32

M i nut es of the Faculty Commit te e on Student
M i c h i g a n State University, Nove mb er 10, 1966.

Affairs,

33

M i nu te s of the Aca de mic Council, M i ch ig an
University, J a nu ar y 4, 5, 6, 10, 1967.

State

c.

The a d d i t i o n of a s e ct io n on the p r o f e s s i o n a l
rights of the fac u lt y to the a r t ic le on
ac ade mic righ ts and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of
students.

d.

A s ubsta nt ia l r e v i s i o n of the sec tion s
d e a l i n g with student p u b l i c a t i o n s and th ei r
distribution.

The Report
Ja nu ary

10,

was a p p r o v e d by the A c ad em ic

1967 and sent to the F a culty

a ppro ve d it on F e b r u a r y
with the app r ov al

28,

1967-

C o u n c i l on

Senate,

which

A d o p t i o n becam e

of th e Boa rd of T r u s t e e s

final

on M a r c h

16,

1967 .

Summary
This

cha pter has

de v e l o p m e n t

p r e s e n t e d a bri e f h i s t o r y of the

of the report

on the

Stu dents at M i ch ig an State

"Academ ic

University."

F r e e d o m for

It r e p r e s e n t s

a

new d i m e n s i o n in s t u d e n t - u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t i o n s at M i c h i g a n
State Unive rs it y,

d ev el op ed

labor on the part

of m a n y mem be rs

students,
efforts

only after lon g and ard uo us
of the Un i v e r s i t y ,

faculty and a dm i n i s t r a t o r s .

of a large public

look at the many

fac in g stu de nts

a w i l l i n g n e s s to work out d i f f e r e n c e s

Most

important

so that
who were

look up on

greatly

but also

in a r e a s o n e d

changes where and wh e n nec es sa ry.

it e s t a b l i s h e s

changes

the

u n i v e r s i t y to not only take a

c o mp le x pr o b l e m s

ma nn er and to m a k e n e ed ed

It r e p r e s e n t s

can be made

p ro ce d u r e s

in an orde rl y

and g u i d e l i n e s
fashion.

invo lv ed in the d e v e l o p m e n t

Those

of the Report

it in the f o r m of a c o n s t i t u t i o n or a r t i c l e s

of

60

good faith.

In the final an a l y s i s the success

bold ex peri m e n t
document
sity .

rests

in the good faith p l a ce d

and its p r i n c i p l e s

by all memb ers

of this
in the

of the U n i v e r ­

CHAPTER

IV

'D E S I G N A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y

Introduction
C h apt er

IV Is d e v o t e d

methods and p r o c e d u r e s
d e s c r i p t i o n of the

used

to a d e s c r i p t i o n of the
In c o n d u c t i n g the

f o l l o w i n g Is Included:

of the p o p u l a t i o n and the m e t h o d
tion of the

ment; and the p r o c e d u r e s

A

the d e s c r i p t i o n

for sa mpli ng;

in st r u m e n t used and p r o c e d u r e

study.

the d e s c r i p ­

for its d e v e l o p ­

us ed in o b t a i n i n g and a n a l y z i n g

the data.

D e s c r i p t i o n of the P o p u l a t i o n and
S e l e c t i o n of the Sample
Fou r d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s

were

used for this

study:

1.

The student p o p u l a t i o n con s i s t e d of all fulltime (12 credits or more) so ph om or es, j u n i o r s
and seniors a t t e n d i n g M i c h i g a n State d u r i n g
the fall of 1968 and who h a d a t t e n d e d M i c h i g a n
State d u r i n g the 1 967-68 aca dem ic year.

2.

The student l e a d e r p o p u l a t i o n c on s i s t e d of
those studen ts who q u a l i f i e d for the above and
who had been s e le ct ed by t h e i r peers to serve
in the student g over nm en t of the U n i v e r s i t y ,
eith er as a l i v i n g unit p r esi de nt or at the
A l l - U n i v e r s i t y level.

3.

The faculty p o p u l a t i o n i n clu de d all the M i c h i g a n
State U n i v e r s i t y facult y c u r r e n t l y h o l d i n g the
academ ic ran k of ass is tan t profe s s o r , a s s o c i a t e
p r o f e s s o r or full p r o f e s s o r and who had a p p o i n t ­
men ts at M i c h i g a n State d u r i n g the 1967-68
academic year.
61

4.

The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of f u l l ­
time ”^ r o 7 e ¥ i T o n a T “ staff or fa c u l t y m e mb er s who
were e n g a g e d d u r i n g the fall t e r m In gen er al or
aca de mic a d m i n i s t r a t i o n at M i c h i g a n State
U n i v e r s i t y and who h e l d a p p o i n t m e n t s d u r i n g the
1 967-68 a c ad em ic year.

The 1968 Student
100 u n d e r g r a d u a t e

D i r e c t o r y was us ed to r andom ly

students

of so pho more,

select

juni o r or senior

s t a n d i n g at M i c h i g a n State Univer si ty.

The

D i r e c t o r y was used to ve ri f y a t t e n d a n c e

d u r in g the 1 967-68

ac ad emi c

year.

A r a n d o m p r o c e d u r e was us ed

100 in divid ua ls

for the

mat ely twe nty thousand.

sample

in s e l e c t i n g

from a population

Of the

100 stu den ts

or 83 per cent r e t u r n e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e
u s eab le

1967 Student

s e l ec te d 83

of w h i c h 74 were

for s t a t i s t i c a l purposes.

The p o p u l a t i o n used for s e l e c t i n g e l ec te d
leaders

c o n s i s t e d of all r e s i d e n c e hall,

and co o p e r a t i v e pr e s i d e n t s ,

student

of the A s s o c i a t e d

S t ud en ts

U ni versit y.

One h u n d r e d

student

was

s elect ed

(100)

from a p o p u l a t i o n

student

fra ter ni ty ,

sorority,

o r g a n i z a t i o n pr es id e n t s

and off ice rs

doml y

of a p p r o x i ­

of M i c h i g a n State
leaders were r a n ­

of 162.

Class

sta nd ing

che cked t h r o u g h the 1968 Studen t D i r e c t o r y an d v e r i f i ­

cation of attendance, for the 1 967-68 a c a d e m i c ye a r was
s u b s t a n t i a t e d by u s i n g the 1967 Student
100

student

leaders

of wh i c h 74 were
A card file

Di rectory.

Of the

sel ec te d 79 or 79 per cent r e s p o n d e d

s t a t i s t i c a l l y useable.
c o n t a i n i n g the names

fa cul ty at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y
of 1967-68 was us ed to select

and rank of all

for the aca de mi c year

faculty.

One h u n d r e d

(100)

faculty were

s e lec te d ra n d o m l y

a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t e e n hundre d.

fr om a p o p u l a t i o n of
The current

staff d i r e c t o r y was used to d e t e r m i n e
son was
1968.

if the

faculty p e r ­

in fact at the U n i v e r s i t y d u r i n g the

fall t e r m of

Of the 100 sampled

questio nn aire.
useable

Eighty-two

st at istic al ly .

89 or 89 per cent r e t u r n e d the
(82)

i n d i c a t i n g com men ts
R e aso ns

give n

r es po nses we re that
document

of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were

Sev e n f a cu lt y

not r e sp on d by g i v i n g opi ni on s

felt that

only.
for r e t u r n i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s wit hou t
the r e s p o n d e n t

and its purposes

(100) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were

was u n f a m i l i a r wi t h the

or that his r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

se l e c t e d

population
chairmen,

for the

1968 -6 9 a ca demic

admlnistrators.

ass istant

deans,

Of the o n e - h u n d r e d

(8l) r e s p o n d e d with s e v e n t y - f o u r

and

lis t in gs of M i c h i g a n

c o n s i s t e d of ov e r t w o - h u n d r e d
d ir ec t o r s ,

year.

The

(200) d ep ar tm ent

deans

(100)

and ce ntral

sele ct ed e i g h t y -

(7*0 of the ret ur ns

s t a t i s t i c a l l y useable.

Proced ure s Us ed in D e v e l o p i n g the
Instrument a n d O b t a i n i n g the Da t a
An ins tr u m e n t
p ri nc ip les

c o n s i s t i n g of forty

e x t r a c t e d from the repo rt

F r e e d o m for S t uden ts

and

One h u n d r e d

fro m the a c ad em ic

central a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
State U n i v e rs it y,

they could

and five r e s p o n d e d by

duties were not r e la te d to the principle.

one

faculty and

s tate me nt s

on the

or

"Academic

at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y " was

d e v e l o p e d to solicit the opi ni on s of r a n do ml y sel ected
respondents.1

The forty state me nt s were

refined from an o r i g i n a l seventy
or ig ina l q u e s t i o n n a i r e
which were

selected and

it em questi on na ir e.

incl ude d p ol icie s

The

and pra ct ic es

s u b s e q u e n t l y e l i m i n a t e d from the q ue st i o n n a i r e

The or i g i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was r e s p o n d e d to by twen ty
student p e r s o n n e l

deans th ro u g h o u t

the United States.

They

were i n vited to criti qu e the q u e s t i o n n a i r e as to clarity,
purpose and cOri'tent.

In a d d i t i o n p erson al

conducte d with several
naire

in divid ua ls

in ter views were

know le dg ab le

c o n s t r u c t i o n and survey methods.

in q u e s t i o n ­

The office of

In st i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y was
consu lt ed

for an a pp raisal of the que stionnaire.

The basis
that the

for the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e was the a s s u m p t i o n

se l e c t e d p ri nc ip les are d e si re d goals w h i c h

ac ce pt ed in spirit, w o u l d bri ng U n i v e r s i t y poli ci es
practice s

clos er to these pr inc ipl es.

g ui de lines used were
and classroom,
tions and

student

student

Each re spo nd en t

categorized
records,

p u b l i ca ti on s

and

Those p ri nc ip les

into four a r e a s :
student

if

or

academi c

conduct and r e g u l a ­

and f r e e d o m of expression.

was as k e d to make

two re spo nses to each

principle:
(a) the degree w h i c h he felt the p rin ciple
be de si r a b l e ;

1Copy of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

to

is found in A p p e n d i x A.

(b) the degree whi ch he felt p r a c t i c e s have
m o v e d closer to the p r i n c i p l e over the
pas t year because of the Ac a d e m i c F r e e d o m
Report.
R e s p o n d e n t s were asked to select and circle a n u m b e r
on a scale r a n g i n g from one to
which they felt the principle
to ha ve

changed.

five,

in di ca t i n g the degree

to be de si r a b l e

Also the r e s p o n d e n t s

and p r a c t i c e s

were q u e s t i o n e d as

to w h e t h e r t h e y had access to the A c a d e m i c F r e e d o m Repo rt
and h a d in fact

read the document.

D u r i n g the week of No v e m b e r 19,

1968,

naire was m a i l e d with a p er s o n a l c o v e r
s e l e c t e d in the

sample.

return.

Each questi onnai re was

re sponden ts.
was

letter to each per so n

A self-addressed,

was e n c l o s e d w i t h the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

stamped e n v e l o p e

to enhance a prom pt

code d for i d e n t i f y i n g n o n ­

After a per io d of two wee ks

sent to f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

who h a d not responded.

the q u e s t i o n ­

Studen ts an d

a f ol low-u p

in the

student

sample

letter
groups

leaders who

had f a iled to respond were g i v e n a p e r s o n a l t e l e p h o n e
In the

event

the qu est io nn ai re

had b e e n misl ai d or dis ca rded ,

a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e was mailed.
sample groups

call.

The resp on se s

are summarized in Tabl e

of the

1.

An al y z i n g the D a t a
The d a t a ob tai ned from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was key
p u n c h e d and p r o g r a m m e d on an IBM 3600
tab les

are u s e d to interpret

b e ing r e p o r t e d

in frequencies

computer.

Contingency

the fin di ng s wi t h r e s p o n s e s
and p e r c e nta ge s.

The

bb

TABLE 1 . — Resp on se s to the qu es ti o n n a i r e :
n u m b e r and per
centage of re sp o n s e s by samp le groups.

N u mbe r
Responded

U s eab le
Re sp o n s e s

Per Cent
Responded

100

83

74

83#

100

79

74

79%

Faculty

100

89

82

89%

Administrators

100

81

74

Ql%

TOTAL

400

33?

304

83$

N o . in
Sample
Students
Student

Leaders

statistic u s e d in a n a l y z i n g the da t a in the
square wit h the
to d e t e r m i n e

study was

chi

.05 level of c o n f i d e n c e b e i n g e s t a b l i s h e d

st at is ti cal

signif ica nce.

C o m m e n t s made by two or more r e s p o n d e n t s
specific p ri nc i p l e s were

e d it ed

and are

r e l a t i n g to

I nc lu ded in r e p o r t ­

ing the data.

Summary
The d e s i g n and m e t h o d o l o g y
study has b e e n p r e s e n t e d
of the p o p u l atio ns

in this

an d p r o c e d u r e s

for this d e s c r i p t i v e
chapter.
used

in the

of samples was given a l o n g wit h the m e t h o d s
the data.

A description
selection

for a n a l y z i n g

CH A P T E R V

A N A L Y S I S OF T H E DATA

Introduction
C h a p t e r V contains
the op i n i o n s

an ana ly si s

of the four groups

of r e s p o n d e n t s to

d e s i r a b i l i t y of s e le cted p r i n c i p l e s
report

on the

"Academic

of the da t a c o n c e r n i n g
(a) the

c o n t a i n e d in the

F r e e d o m for Stud ent s

at M i c h i g a n

State U n i v e r s i t y "

and

tice s

State U n i v e r s i t y had c h a n g e d as a

resul t

at M i c h i g a n
of the

be not ed that

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the prin ci pl e.
the

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Report

but

(b) the d e gr ee wh i c h th ey felt p r a c ­

sta te ment s

under

are not p r i n c i p l e s

at M i c h i g a n State
Comment s,

w i t h the

lat ions,

sim ilar

c o n t a i n e d in the

respondents

freedom

s p e a k e r ’s p o l i c y

and mea ni ng,

made by

have b e e n e d it ed and are
of the r e s p o n s e s

The data is g r o u p e d und er
a c ademi c and c lassr oo m;

rules and student

developed

in 1962.

in con tent

s t a t i sti ca l a n a l y s i s

pri nc ipl e.
freedoms:

University

should

3 8 , 39 a n d 40 in

are gu ide l i n e s r e l a t i n g to stu den ts

of e x p r e s s i o n w hi c h u n d e r l i e the

two or more

items

It

conduct;

sion.

67

to each

four areas

student

included

of student

reco rd s;

regu­

and f r e e d o m of e x p r e s ­

Access

to the Report

It was w r i t t e n into the Rep ort
VII that

curr ent

st ude nt righ ts

regulations

were m a i l e d to all

to stu den ts

and s tr uc t u r e s

an d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s be made

every m e m b e r of the a c a d e m i c
Repo rt

as a part

they h a d acc es s

Table

available

to

Cop ie s of the

To e v alu at e

to the Report,

to the Report

read the Report.

r e l a t i n g to

fac ul ty and staff and d i s t r i b u t e d

at r e g i s t r a t i o n .

of the r e s p o n d e n t s

communi ty.

of A r t i c l e

the a w a r e n e s s

they were

and

aske d

(1)

if

(2) w h e t h e r they ha d

2 pr e s e n t s

an a n al ysis

of the

r es p o n s e s to the two quest ion s.

TA BL E 2 . — R e s p o n s e s to the q u e s t i o n as to w h e t h e r the
r es po n d e n t h a d access to the Rep ort and had re ad the Report.

a.

R e s p o n s e s to h a v i n g
acc ess to Report

b.

Re sp o n s e s to h a vi ng
re a d the Rep ort

N
Yes
Stu de nt s

N
No

Yes

No

59

13

28

43

73

1

61

13

Faculty

75

1

58

14

Administrators

68

0

65

2

275

15

212

72

St udent

TOT AL

Lea de rs

Re s p o n d e n t s te nd e d to comple te the q u e s t i o n n a i r e
ev en t h ough they had not
mad e

in the di re ct i o n s

respondent
re la tiv e

read the Report.

to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e that

should or shou ld not

to his r e sp onse

shou ld be n o t e d that

to h a v i n g re ad the Report,

some of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

that he had not read the Report,

feel q u a l i f i e d to

It

were

from the r e s p o n ­

therefore

he did not

r e s p o n d to the questi ons.

Many of those
principles

the

ans we r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

r e tur ne d u n a n s w e r e d but w i t h the com men t
dent

No m e n t i o n was

sam pl ed made r e s p o n s e s

only to those

about w h i c h they felt know le d g e a b l e .

u n q u a l i f i e d to make any j u dgmen t
as i n d i c a t e d on Scale b.

While

in the change
student

Many felt
in p r acti ce s

lea de rs

res pond to bo t h Scale a and b, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

tend ed to

and faculty

ten ded to r e sp on d to Scale b only w h e n they felt the
p ri nc ip le
dutie s

was rel evan t

to their specific

p o s i t i o n or

in the Univer sit y.

Ana ly si s

Aca dem ic
As

and C l a s s r o o m
sho wn in

ference a m o n g the
the prin c i p l e

four groups

significant

on e i t h e r Scale a
student

jud gme nt

fear of penalty.

dif­

or b under

is free to take

to da t a and views o f f e r e d

and to res erv e

wit hou t

3there was no

s t a ti ng that the

r e aso ne d e x c e p t i o n
room,

Tab le

about m a t t e r s

in the c l a s s ­
of opinion,

T A B L E 3.— The student is free to take r e aso ne d ex ce p t i o n to data and views off ered
in the classroom, and to reserve judgme nt about m e t t e r s of opinion, w i thout fear of
penalty.

Scale

a.

Un desi r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

2

. 1
N

3

Highly
Desi r a b l e
Great
Change

4

%

N

%

N

%

N

5

%

N

%

To ta l

Students

a. 0
b. 19

0 .0
29.7

0
17

0 ,0
26,6

7
22

0.5
34, 4

14
5

18.9
7,8

53
1

71,6
1.6

74
64

Student
Leaders

a.
0
b , 16

0.0
21-9

1
21

1,4
28,8

4
28

5.4
38.4

10
6

13.5
8.2

59
2

79-7
2,7

74
73

Faculty

a.
b.

2
23

2,5
39-0

1
16

1.3
27.1

4
14

5.0
23,7

14
5

17.5
8,5

59
1

73.8
1.7

81
59

Adminis­
trators

a. 0
b. 18

0.0
28.6

1
17

1,4
27.0

4
25

5.5
39.7

12
3

1 6 .4
4,8

56
0

76.7
0,0

73
63

Total

a. 2
b. 76

Mean

a.
b.

4.7
2.2

3
71

50
19

19
89
Std,

Dev.

a.
.7
b. 1.0

227
4

301
259

All

four groups

Ind ica te d the pri n c i p l e to be high ly

des ir abl e with a me a n res p o n s e of 4.7 on the
scale.

Re l a t i v e to the chan ge in practices

5*0 point
that had

occ urr ed as the result of I m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the pr in c i p l e ,
the groups tend ed to indica te that
place wi t h a mea n r e spons e
Twe lve

(12)

students

of 2.2

little

change had take n

on the 5 point

and student

leaders made

comment that this p r ac ti ce was in exi ste nce
Report and that

before

com me nte d that the

in class.

student

Sixteen

in

(16) faculty

had alway s been a v ai le d of this

in the ir classes and ther e f o r e no change was necessary.

E i ght ee n

(18) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

Five

took the same position.

(5) stu dents an d student

a l tho ug h d i s a g r e e m e n t

is allowed,

leaders

felt that

it is n e c e s s a r y

that the

opi nion of the p ro f e s s o r be w r i t t e n on e x a m i n a t i o n s
not that
leaders

of their own.
felt that

T hr e e

they were

(3)

students

hes itant

for fear of r e c e i v i n g a low er grade

Three

(3)

students,

faculty and four

two

(2)

student

(4) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

could be ab us e d by the

and

and student

in e x p r e s s i n g their

views

right

the
the

they had e x p e r i e n c e d no d i f f i c u l t y

e x p r e s s i n g their views

right

scale.

in the course.

leaders,

four

c o m m e n t e d that

student and v al ua bl e

(4)
this
class

time dissipated.
In Table

4 an a na l y s i s

to the pr in c i p l e
against

is p r e s e n t e d of the re sp o n s e s

st at ing that

improper.disclosure

the

student

of i n f o r m a t i o n

is p rote ct ed
c o n c e r n i n g his

TABLE 4.— The student is p r o t e c t e d against imp ro pe r di sc l o s u r e of i n f o r mati on
conce r n i n g his grades, views, beliefs, pol i t i c a l associati ons , health, or character
w h i c h an in str u c t o r acquires in the course of his p r o f e s s i o n a l r elat io ns w i t h the
student.

Scale

a.

Un d e s i r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

2

1
N

%

4

3

N

%

N

%

N

Highl y
De si r a b l e
Great
Change
5

%

N

%

Total

Students

a.
b.

0
19

0.0
32.2

1
12

1.1*
20. 3

4
20

4.5
33.9

14
7

18.9
H.9

55
l

74.3
1.7

74
59

Student
Leaders

a. 0
b. 13

0.0
18.6

3
18

4.1
25.7

3
18

4.1
25.7

12
15

16.2
21.4

56
6

75.7
8.6

74
70

Fa culty

a.
b.

b

5.1

15

2b.6

3
18

3.8
29.5

10
20

12. 2
32.8

9
6

H.5
9,8

52
2

66.7
3.3

78
61

Adminis­
trators

a,
3
b. 10

b.2
15.2

0
12

0.0
1 8 .2

3
22

4.2
33.3

16
16

22. 2
24. 2

50
6

69.4
9,1

72
66

Tota l

a.
b.

2.3
22. 3

7
60

2.3
2 3 .4

20
80

6.7
31.3

51
44

17.7
17.7

213
15

71-5
5.9

298
256

Mean

a.
b.

7
57

b .5
2. 6

Std.

Dev.

a.
b.

•9
1.2

73

grades,

views,

beli ef s,

political associations,

c hara ct er whi c h an i n s t r u c t o r
professional
No

difference existed

T w o - h u n d r e d and

thirteen

298 p e r s o n s r e s p o n d i n g to the
to be h ig h l y desirable.
groups was

the scale at

Scale b was
three

(3)

faculty,

practice was
Pour

(4)

seven

(7)

felt that

the p r i n c i p l e may

pra ct ic e had

(3)

about

fell o w students

cause f a c u l t y

leaders

the

leade rs

felt that

(2)

facu lty

to be ove r-

and f r a t e r n i t y
Eight

(8)

this right

had

at the Un iversi ty.

5 shows that the p r i n c i p l e
acc ura te and

Two

t he i r

indicated a concern

(resident a s s i s t a n t s

never be e n v i o l a t e d in thei r years

re c e i v e s

(10)

of the student.

h a v i n g access to th e i r grades.

Table

ten

c o m m e n t e d that

increased.

students and student

students and student

student

lea ders,

in wh ic h

i n d i c a t e d that

to the p oss ib le d e t r i m e n t

Three

officers)

The m e a n on

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

of the

protective

student

(9) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

awar en es s

marked

in t h ei r o p i n i o n there

in prac ti ce s.

fol low ed befo re

facu lt y

197 or 7 7 %

Scale b,

This was c l a r i f i e d by com m en ts

students,
and nine

change

four

scale.

3 or bel ow i n d i c a t i n g

2.6.

(213) or 71.5? of the

The mean r a t i n g for the

256 r e s p o n d i n g to

had been no or little

in the o p i n i o n of

item i n d i c a t e d the p r i n c i p l e

4.5 on the 5 point

Of the

in the course of his

r e l a t i o n s wi th the student.

sig ni fic an t

the groups.

acq uir es

h e a l t h or

cle ar ly

s t a t i n g that

the

sta te d i n f o r m a t i o n

TA B L E 5.— The student rece iv es acc ur at e and clearly stated i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h enables
h i m to d et ermin e his own academic re la t i o n s h i p w i t h the U n i v e r s i t y and any special
conditio ns w h i c h apply.

Scale

a.

Undes ir ab le

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2
%

3
N

%

^
%

N

Hi gh ly
Desi r a b l e
Great
Change

5
%

N

N

%

Total

Students

a. 1
b. 30

1.4
45.5

0
20

0
30.3

6
10

8.1
15.2

12
5

16.2
7.6

55
1

74.3
1.5

74
66

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
21

1.4
29.2

1
27

1.4
37.5

3
13

4.1
18.1

11
9

15.1
12.5

57
2

78.1
2.8

73
72

Faculty

a.
b.

0
11

0.0
19.3

2
18

2.7
31.6

2
14

2.7
24.6

14
13

18.7
22.8

57
1

76
1.8

75
57

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

1
9

1.4
14.1

0
18

0.0
28.1

7
29

10.0
45.3

4
7

5.7
10.9

58
1

82.9
1.6

70
64

Total

a.
b.

3
71

1.0
27.4

3
83

1.0
32

18
66

6.2
25.5

41
34

14
13.1

227
5

77.7
1.9

292
259

Mean

a.
b.

4.7
2.3

Scale b.

Std.

DF 12 x 2 34.961

Dev.

a.
b.

Si gn if ic ant at

.7
1.1
.01 level

w h i c h enab les h i m to d e t e r m i n e his o w n a c a d e m i c r e l a t i o n ­
ship w i t h the U n i v e r s i t y

and an y s p ec ia l c o n d i t i o n s which

apply was p e r c e i v e d to be a h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e
all

four groups.

Little

d i f f e r e n c e was

r e s p o n s e s wi t h the mean bei n g
Some d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d
have c h an ge d as a result
ference was

change
Seven

in the o p i n i o n s

of the princi ple .

that t h e i r d e p a r t m e n t s

T h re e

stated that

and thre e

(3)

an d c o ll eges

busy or di ff i c u l t

(3)

students

(2)

.01 level of

to locate.

lea der s

students

s t r i v i n g to improve

c o m m u n i c a t i n g of

a n d two

(2)

principle

i n dicat ed

Four

(4)

stu d en ts

that

the

i n f o r m a t i o n even w h e n

Five

felt that the

stat ed
ge ne ral

6 giv es

that the

student

that th e y were often

(5)

student

stu den t

an a n a l y s i s
student

and three

leaders and

s h ou ld rely on his

own in it i a t i v e and not rely on the ac a d e m i c
Tabl e

advisors.

of the r e s p o n s e s

re c e i v e s

ac c u r a t e

requirements

to the

and clearly

i n f o r m a t i o n wh i c h ena b le s h i m to d e t e r m i n e

acceptable academic

leaders.

the a c ademi c a d v i s o r s w e r e effective

o b t a i n e d was r a t h e r vague.
two

dif­

f a c u l t y comment ed

were

in t r a n s l a t i n g the r e q u i r e m e n t s but

student

Si gni fica nt

and s t u d e n t

in a c a d e m i c a d v i s i n g and the

re quireme nts .

(3)

that practic es

F a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p e r c e i v e d a greater

(7) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

lea der s

in their

4.7 for all groups.

in p r a c t i c e s than did s tu d e n t s

practices

indicated

fou nd amo ng the gro ups at the

confidence.

principle by

the

for e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g an
standing.

S ig ni fican t

di f f e r e n c e s were

T AB L E 6. — The student receiv es acc urate and clearly stated i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h enables
him to d e te rm in e the gene ral r e q u i r e m e n t s for e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g an
a cc ep table aca de mic standing.

Scale

a.

Unde si ra bl e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

Highly
Desira bl e
Great
Change

1
N

%

%

N

%

N

N

%

N

%

Total

Students

a.
b.

0
24

0.0
38.1

1
17

1.4
27

5
13

6.8
20.6

10
8

13.5
12.7

58
1

78.4
1.6

74
63

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
26

0.0
35.1

0
17

0.0
23

2
20

2.7
27

11
9

14.9
12.2

61
2

82.4
2.7

74
74

Faculty

a. 0
b. 16

0.0
28.6

0
15

0.0
26.8

4
18

5.3
32.1

9
6

11. 8
10. 7

63
1

82.9
1.8

76
56

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0
12

0.0
17.9

0
16

0.0
23.9

2
25

2.8
37.3

8
10

11.1
14.9

62
4

86.1
6

72
67

Total

a.
b.

0
78

0.0
30

1
65

.3

13
76

4.4
29.2

38
33

12. 8
12.7

244
8

82.4
3.1

296
260

Me a n

a.
b.

4. 8
2. 3

25

S t d . Dev.

a.
b.

•5
1 .1

not found for either

Scale a or b .

pe rc e i v e d to be highly d e s i r a b l e as

The p r i n c i p l e was
indica te d by the

mean of 4.8.
Littl e di ff er e n c e was not ed in opin io ns
groups r e g a r d i n g change
Ele ven

(11)

student

in pra ct ic es .

lea de rs

and six

of the

The mea n was

(6) stu den ts

four
2.3.

indi­

cated that

a l t h o u g h the

some form,

it is oft en u n c l e a r and not t h o r o u g h l y u n d e r ­

stood.

Four

i n f o r m a t i o n may be a v a i l a b l e

(4) student

an o p i n i o n that this was
gr ad in g s y s t e m and the
(5) stu den ts

and six

leaders

and

student s

student

On the oth e r ha n d five

lead ers m a i n t a i n e d that

the i n f o r m a t i o n was r e c e i v e d in an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e
Six

(6) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

an d four

special eff or ts had bee n made
communi ca ti on s,
faculty

felt

that

Three

in rece nt

co lle ges

manner.

(4) faculty I n d i c a t e d that
years to im prove

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

their

expressed

e s p e c i a l l y the case wi t h the new

step scale.

(6)

(2)

in

and two

ha d done well

(2)

in this

area prior- to the Report .
R e s p o n s e s to the p r i n c i p l e
lishment
the right

of proce d u r e s
of a faculty

a n aly ze d in Table
of the p r i n c i p l e

7.

slight,

ferent

for h e a r i n g com pl ai nts
and the right
The r e s p o n s e s

to re co n c i l e

of a student

to the d e s i r a b i l i t y

A l t h o u g h the d i f f e r e n c e

in r e s p o n s e s

it was high e n ou gh to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

at the

are

ten de d to be hig h with a me an of 4.7

for the four groups.
was

d e a l i n g wit h the e s t a b ­

.05 level of con fidence.

dif­

T A B L E 7-— Pr ocedures are e s t a b li sh ed for h e a r i n g complaints to r econc il e a right
the facu lty and the right of a student.

Scale

a.

Un d e s i r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

N

3

%

4

%

N

N

Highly
Des ir abl e
Great
Cha nge
5

%

N

%

Tota;

Students

a.
b.

0
7

0,0
11.1

0
14

0.0
22,2

2
21

2.7
33.3

13
14

17.6
22,2

59
7

79.7
11.1

74
63

Student
Leaders

a.
b,

0
8

0.0
11.3

1
16

1.4
22.5

2
16

2.7
22.5

8
23

10. 8
32.4

63
8

85.1
11.3

74
71

Facu lty

a.
b.

0
10

0.0
15.6

1
6

1.3
9.4

6
17

7.6
26.6

15
19

19.0
29.7

57
12

72.2
18,8

79
64

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0
5

0.0
7.1

0
16

0.0
22.9

11
22

15.3
31.4

7
15

9.7
21.4

54
12

75
17.1

72
70

Total

a. 0
b. 30

0.0
11. 2

2
52

0 r7
19.4

21
76

7.0
28.4

43
71

14.4
26,5

233
39

77.9
14.6

299
268

Mean

a.
b.

S t d . Dev.

4.7
3.1

Scale a.

DF 9 x^ 17.24

a.
b.

.6
1.2

Sig ni fi ca nt at

of

.05 level

No significant

d if fe r e n c e

sponses to Scale b.
Five

The me a n for the four groups was

(5) ad m in is tr ators ,

student
bef ore

leaders
the

fac ult y

was o b s e r v e d in the r e ­

four

(4) faculty

c om me nt ed that

such p r o c e d u r e s

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.

and thre e

(3) faculty

felt

o v e r l o o k e d rega r d i n g this

Three

that

Two

(3)

faculty rig hts had be en

principle.

Four

(4) student lea der s

that

a l t h o u g h pr oc e d u r e s may exist,

and time

consuming.

was the most
Table
p ri n c i p l e

Two

and two

Four

that m e m b e r s h i p

regu lar d e p a r tm en ta l

lems are discussed a n d po l i c i e s
leaders p e r c e i v e d

d esir ab le

l e ad er s

p ri nc ip le was

still

this

to the

stu de nts

committees
for mulated.

at the

in v o l v e d

felt that

of the r e s p o n s e s

on

in whi c h p r o b ­
Stu den ts

and

to be more

than faculty an d ad m i n i s t r a t o r s .

A lthou gh o p i n i o n s

commented

in the Report.

the pri nc ip le

found to be s i g n i fi cant

con­

in this matter.

is pr o v i d e d for

and col lege

stud ents

they are too

(2) student

an a n al ysis

(4)

(2) s tu de nt s

si gni fi can t p r i n c i p l e
8 shows

since

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

si de red the O m b u d s m a n to be very he lp ful

dence.

exis ted

in their d e p a r t m e n t s

the i m p l em entat io n of the Report.

was

(2)

indicat ed th a t a w a r e n e s s had i n c r e a s e d and that

ch annels had been e s t a b l i s h e d

student

and two

3.1.

Difference

.01 leve l of c o n f i ­

of the groups diff e r e d ,

the

b e l i e v e d to be d e s i r a b l e w i t h a m e a n

re s p o n s e of 4.2 for the four groups.

TABLE 8.— M e m b e r s h i p is p r ov id ed for students on r e gu lar de p a r t m e n t a l and college
committ ees in w h i c h p rob le ms are disc u s s e d and po li cies formulated.

Scale

a.

U nd es ir able

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

N

4

3

%

N

Highly
D esir ab le
Great
Change

%

N

5

%

N

%

Total

3
10

4.1
15.6

1
12

1.4
18.8

7
21

9.5
32.8

16
15

21.6
23.4

47
6

63.5
9.4

74
64

a.
b.

1
4

1.4
5.5

2
12

2.7
16.4

3
19

4.1
26

14
25

18.9
34.2

54
13

73
17.8

74
73

Fac ult y

a.
b.

7
7

9.1
10.1

8
9

10. 4
13

15
19

19.5
27.5

20
16

26
23.2

27
18

35.1
26.1

77
69

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

3
5

4.2
7.1

e
>;
12

6.9
17.1

17
20

23.6
28.6

11
20

15.3
28.6

36
13

50
18.6

72
70

Total

a.
b.

14
26

Mean

a.
b.

Students

a.
b.

Student
Leaders

4.2
3.3

Scale a.

42
79

16
45
Std.

DP 12 x 2 38.11

Dev.

61
76
a.
b.

164
50

1.1
1.2

Signif ic an t at

.01 level

297
276

On Scale b the re t e n d e d to be g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t
to the ext en t

in the

change of p r a c t i c e s

of 3.3 n o t e d for the four groups.
change

in p r a c t i c e s
Thr ee

in the

c o m m e n t e d that

s e l e c t i o n of stu dents

the

groups.
the met hods

use d

Thr ee

(3) student

lea de rs

such r e p r e s e n t a t i o n sh ou ld be e x t e n d e d to the

Boa rd of Tru st ee s.
stu dents

felt

Five

that

(5) student

lea d er s an d two

such c o m m i t t e e s were

stu d en ts needs.

Two

student

not r e all y m e e t i n g

only b e c a u s e

they d e m a n d e d

such r e p r e s e n t a t i o n an d not b e c a u s e of the go o d will
One

(1)

st udent

lead er and one

q u e s t i o n e d the k n o w l e d g e a b i l i t y
such c o m m i t t e e s
bu ti on

to the extent

in aca d e m i c
Three

has bro ug ht

of stu dent s

felt

that

the most e x t e n s i v e
It was

not have

student

st ude nts

sh ou l d not

that

representation.

Two

felt that

stud en ts

s e rving on

participate

commi t t e e s

and

sh ou ld

co nc er n that

in d i s c u s s i o n s

t e n d e d to lose
Three

some

in pr ac t i c e s

(2) adminsi.trators

Ther e was

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

work of such com mi tt ees.

this pr in c i p l e

change

felt by two

(3 ) f a c u l t y m e mber s

matters.

student

matters.

in the Un iv er si ty.
and three

(1)

of the

to be able to ma k e a c o n t r i ­

(3 ) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
about

(2)

l e ader s b e l i e v e d that

stu dents we re on such co mm it t e e s

faculty.

less

to serve on such co mmi t t e e s

were not tru ly r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
felt that

with a mean r es p o n s e

Stud en ts p e r c e i v e d

tha n the other three

(3 ) s t ud en ts

as

on f a cu lt y

(1) f a cu lt y p e r s o n

int eres t

qui ck ly

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

in the

i nd ic ated that
ad v i s o r y

their c ol leges

c o m m i t t e e s w h i c h were

The a n a l y s i s
that

departments

for the r e ceip t
appears

or d e p a r t m e n t s

f u n c t i o n i n g rat he r well.

of re sp o n s e s

and col le ge s

to the p r i n c i p l e

have

and c o n s i d e r a t i o n

in Tab le

9.

had e s t a b l i s h e d

c l ear ly def ined c h a n n e l s
of st ud ent

No s i g n i f i c a n t

complaints

d i f f e r e n c e was found

a mo n g the gr ou p s r e l a t i v e to the d e s i r a b i l i t y
ciple.

The me a n r a t i n g was

b e l i e v e d the p r i n c i p l e
Some d i f f e r e n c e
Scale b in that
tices

s l ig ht ly

fer enc e was
Little

4.6,

stat in g

of the p r i n ­

i n d i c a t i n g the four g r o up s

to be h i g h l y d esi ra bl e.
was n o t e d

am o n g

the

s tu dents t e n d e d to rate
lower than the

significant

the change in p r a c ­

o t h e r three

at the

groups on

groups.

The d i f ­

.05 level of confidence.

cha nge was r e c o g n i z e d by the

four groups with the

mean r a t i n g b e i n g 2.3.
Ten

(10 st udent

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
are no n e xi st ent
sible

making progress
felt that

One

fou r

com ment s

(1)

that

stu den t
the

ever done about

felt that

c o lle ge s

in this area,

they were d r a g g i n g

(4)

d e f i n e d it is i m p o s ­

l e a d e r and one

ch a n n e l s

(1)

exist but

comp la in ts .

Two

and d e p a r t m e n t s

while
their

s tuden ts and two

e i t h e r the chan ne ls

so p o or ly

i n d i c a t e d that

n o t h i n g is r e al ly
administrators

made

or the y are

to use them.

fa culty p e r s o n

leaders,

(2)
are

another administrator
feet

on this principle .

TABLE 9.— De partm en ts and colleges have clearly d e fi ne d channels for the rec e ip t and
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of student compla int s c o n c e r n i n g the q u al it y of instruction.

Scale

a.

Un d e s i r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1

2

N

%

N

4

3

%

N

%

Highly
Desira bl e
Great
Change
5

%

N

N

%

Total

Students

a. 0
b. 26

0
41. 3

1
22

1.4
34.9

6
11

8.1
17.5

13
3

17.6
4.8

54
1

73
1.6

74
63

Student
Leaders

a. 0
b. 20

0
27, 4

1
24

1.4
32.9

2
19

2.7
26

10
10

13.5
13.7

61
0

82.4
0

74
73

Faculty

a.
b.

0
15

0
22.7

1
16

1.3
24.2

9
20

11.5
30.3

18
8

23.1
12.1

50
7

64.1
10.6

78
66

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0
13

0
19, 7

1
22

1.4
33.3

6
19

8.2
28.8

19
10

26
15.2

47
2

64.4
3.0

73
66

Total

a.
b.

0. 0
74

Mea n

a.
b.

4. 6
2. 3

Scale b .

4
84

23
69
S t d . Dev.

DF 12 X

2

25.74

212
10

60
31
a.
b.

S i g n i fi ca nt at

0.7
1.1
.05 level

299
286

Student

Rec ord s

Table 10 shows an ana l y s i s of the r e s p o n s e s to the
principle
records
vidual

that all p olici es

are based on res pect
student.

and p ra ct ices

concerning

for the p r i v a c y of the i n d i ­

The p ri n c i p l e was p e r c e i v e d to be highl y

de si r a b l e with the mean r e s p o n s e

for the four groups

b e i n g 4.6.
Grea te r di ff er e n c e
opi ni on s

on the extent wh i c h p r a c t i c e s had c h a n g e d in the

Un iversity .

The

that pr ac t i c e s
and faculty.
ni fic ant

student

D iffer en ce

and two

student

ments that there
rele ase

student

leaders

four gro ups was

(2)

four

students

(4) faculty,
felt

sig­

three

(3)

that this p r a c ­

the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.
and two

(2)

students made c o m ­

This has been eviden ce d,

the changes

they

in v a ri ou s re co r d p oli cies.

leaders and one

i nd iv id uals

felt

seemed to be a t i g h t e n i n g up on the

of records.

cated by

a m o n g the

(4) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

leaders

(4)

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

.05 level of confidence.

tice was evident befo re
Four

leaders

had c h an ged sli ght ly more tha n did student s

at the

Pour
student

e x i s t e d a m o n g the groups r e g a r d i n g

(1) student

felt

indi­
Pour

that vari ou s

in the U n i v e r s i t y v i o l a t e d this resp ec t

for

privacy.
The r e s p o n s e s
is a d e m o n s t r a b l e

to the pr in c i p l e

sta ti ng that there

need for all rec ords r e t a i n e d w h ic h is

(4)

TABLE 10.— All p ol i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s conc e r n i n g reco rd s are ba s e d on respect
p r i v a c y of the Indivi du al student.

Scale

a.

U nde si ra bl e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

2

1
N

%

N

4

3

%

N

Highly
D e sir ab le
Great
Change
5

%

N

%

for the

N

%

Total

Students

a. 0
b . 16

0
25. 8

1
13

1.4
21.0

4
23

5.4
37.1

8
7

10.8
11.3

61
3

81.4
4.8

74
62

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
17.4

1
8

1.4
11. 6

4
24

5.5
34. 8

5
16

6.8
23.2

63
9

86.3
13.0

73
69

Faculty

a. 0
b. 14

0
23

4
18

5.1
29.5

10
17

12.7
27.9

10
9

12.7
14.8

55
3

69.6
4.9

79
61

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0
11

0
16.2

2
10

2.0
14.7

8
20

11.0
29.4

13
13

17.8
19.1

50
14

68.5
20.6

73
68

Total

a.
b.

0
53

Mean

a.
b.

0
12

8
49

36
45
Dev.
std. :

4. 6
2. 8

Scale b.

26
84

DP

12 x 2 22.50

229
29
a.
b.

Signi fi ca nt at

.8
1.3
.05 level

299
260

r e a s o n a b l y related
of the

to the basi c n e c e s s i t i e s and p ur po se s

ins titution are a n a l y z e d in Table
Si xty-seven p e r cent

five per cent
the

(65 %)

leaders

cent

(49$)

(3 0 $) of the

of the

student

cat eg or ized their r e s p o n s e s acc or di ng ly.

r e g a r d i n g the d e s i r a b i l i t y
at the

as b e i n g

on l y thirty per cent

and fo rt y- nine p e r

sixty-

r e s p o n d i n g to

to per c e i v e the p r i n c i p l e

h i g h l y desirable w h e r e a s
students

(6 7 %) of the fac ul ty and

of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

question tend ed

11.

of the p r i n c i p l e was

Difference
si gni fic ant

.01 level.
Little

change

in p r a c t i c e s were p e r c e i v e d by the

groups with the m e a n r e s p o n s e being 2.5.
istrators,

two

(2) fac ul ty

and one

(1)

Five

four

(5) a d m i n ­

student made

ments that in their o p i n i o n there had b e e n little

com­

change

since practic es in the U n i v e r s i t y a d h e r e d to this p ri nc ip le
b e for e

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e

leaders,

three

(3)

stud en ts

ex p r e s s e d concern that many
the Universit y w hi c h did no t
status

as a student.

administrator
men ts

felt

and one

Three

(3)

student

(1) fac u lt y m e m b e r

records were

b e i n g r e t a i n e d by

relate to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s

(1) faculty p e r s o n and one

that the

various

college s

(1)

and d e p a r t ­

in the U n i v e r s i t y n e e d e d to e v a l u a t e their pra ct ic es

r e lat iv e

to this princip le .

Table 12 shows
that records
are

One

Report,

the r e s p o n s e s

of a s t u d e n t ' s

not retained w i t h o u t

hi s

to the p r i n c i p l e

religio us
knowled ge

stat ing

or p o l i t i c a l beliefs
or consent.

The

TAB LE 11.— There is a d em o n s t r a b l e need for all records r e t a i n e d w h i c h is reaso na bl y
rela te d to the basic n eces si ti es and p urp os es of the institution.
1

I

Scale

a.

Un des ir abl e

a.

b.

No Change

b
OJ

1

%

4

3

N

**

N

%

N

Highly
D esir ab le
Great
Change

N

%

N

5

%

Total

Students

a. 2
b. 16

2.9
28,6

3
7

4.3
12.5

17
25

24.6
44.6

26
5

37.7
8.9

21
3

34.4
5.4

69
56

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
18

0.0
26,1

1
10

1.4
14.5

15
26

20.5
37.7

21
13

28.8
18.8

36
2

49.3
2.9

73
69

Faculty

a.
b.

0
20

0,0
35.1

3
15

3.8
26,3

8
15

10.3
26.3

14
4

17.9
7,0

53
3

67.9
5.3

78
57

Adminis­
trators

a. 0
b. 14

0 .0
23.3

3
11

4.3
18,3

5
18

7.1
30.0

16
8

22.9
13.3

46
9

65,7
15. 0

70
60

Total

a.
2
b . 68

Mean

a,
b.

10
43

45
84

4. 3
2. 5

Scale a,

S t d . Dev.

DF 12 X

£

35.01

156
17

77
30
a.
b.

Si gni ficant at

.9
1.2
.01 level

290
242

TAB LE 12,— Records of a student 's reli gi ou s or p ol i t i c a l beliefs are not r etain ed
without his k nowle dg e or consent.

Scale

a.

Unde si rabl e

a,

b.

No Change

b.

%

N

N

%

N

%

N

Highly
D es ir able
Great
Change

%

N

%

Tot al

Students

a.
b.

1
18

1.4
31

3
10

4,1
17.2

8
16

11
27.6

14
9

19.2
15.5

47
5

64.4
8.6

73
58

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
16

1.4
22.5

1
13

1.4
18.3

3
9

4,1
12.7

12
17

16.2
23.9

57
16

77
22.5

74
71

Fa cul ty

a.
b,

6
21

7.6
40.4

5
6

6.3
11.5

5
14

6.3
26.9

9 .
7

11.4
13.5

54
4

68,4
7.7

79
52

Adminis­
trators

a,
b.

2
16

2.8
28.1

5
4

6.9
7.0

9
20

12.5
35.1

8
9

11.1
15.8

48
8

66,7
14.0

72
57

Total

a,
b.

10
71

Mea n

14
33

a.

4,4

H

0

Std.. Dev

7

Scal e b.

25
59

DF 12 x 2 22,63

43
42
a.

206
33

1.0
i L

S ig nific an t at

.05 level

298
238

four groups p e r c e i v e d this to be a much d e si re d practice
as e v i d e n c e d by the mea n of 4.4.
The p e r c e p t i o n s of the four groups var ie d regarding
change

in U n i v e r s i t y pra ct ic es

The d i f f e r e n c e was

signi fic ant

rel at iv e
at the

to this principle.

.05 level of confi­

dence .
Table

13 presents

the pr in c i p l e

forty pr in c i p l e s

students,

of his own a cad em ic

desirable.

(94%) of the

D i f f e re nc es

of significance.
six

El ev en

in di c a t e d the pr inc iple

The mea n r a t i n g for the four

on Scale b for the

(11)

leaders

Four

and three

(4) student

in di c a t e d that there

(2) student

four groups was
at the

a dm i n i s t r a t o r s ,

.01 level

eleven

(11)

(3) students

leaders and one

is still too much red tape

involved in v i ew in g o n e ’s own record.
leaders

stat ed that

Two

(2) students and

they had exp erienced no

p r o b l e m and the i r reco rds were made r e adi ly
them.

leaders,

students had be e n a v a i l e d of this right

before the Report.

two

student

faculty and eighty-five

existed a mo n g the groups

(6) student

commented that

student

(921) of the

4.9.

The m e a n resp ons e

faculty,

of the

(8 5 %) of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

groups was

2.5 *

(92%)

Of the

was perceived to

N i n e t y - t w o per cent

n i n e t y two per cent

to be high ly desirable.

to inspect the
record.

sur veyed this pr in c i p l e

ni n e t y - f o u r per cent
per cent

of the responses to

that a student has a right

official transc ri pt

be the most

an a n al ys is

available to

T AB L E 13 .— A student has the right to inspect the off ic ial tra ns cr ip t
academic record.

Scale

a.

Und es ir able

a.

b.

No Chan ge

b.

1
N

2
%

3
N

%

N

^
%

of his own

Highly
Desirabl e
Great
Change

5
%

N

N

%

Total
. ?3

0
25

0,0
43.9

1
9

1.4
15.8

1
14

1.4
24.6

4
7

5.5
12.3

67
2

91,8
3,5

■ 57

Student
Leaders

a.
0
b. 18

0.0
26.5

0
13

0,0
19,1

1
20

1.4
29,4

5
10

6.8
14.7

68
7

91.9
10, 3

74
68

Faculty

a.
1
b. 27

1.3
52,9

1
3

1.3
5.9

0
6

0.0
11. 8

3
6

3.8
11. 8

74
9

93,7
17.6

79
51

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0,0
39. 3

0
7

0.0
12.5

2
6

2.7
10. 7

9
8

12.3
14. 3

62
13

84,9
23.2

73
56

Total

a, 1
b. 92

Mean

a.
b.

Students

a.
b.

0
22

4
46

2
32

S t d . Dev,

4. 9
2. 5

Scale b.

21
31

D F 12

26,92

a.
b.

271
31
.5
1.5

Sig ni fica nt at

.01 level

299
232

The ana l y s i s
a student
of his

has

basis

the righ t

conduct,

evaluations

of the r e s p o n s e s

exce pt

to insp ect
letters

is show n

and e v a l u a t i o n s

of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and simi la r

in T a b l e

14.

of the

Littl e d i f f e r e n c e

four groups

d e s i r a b i l i t y of the pri nc ip le.
four grou ps was

four grou ps

relative

was

shown

to the

The m e a n r a t i n g for the

4.3.

Little d i f f e r e n c e was
relative

(3) st ud ents

a student

reports

that

w h i c h are n e c e s s a r i l y p r e p a r e d on a c o n f i d e n t i a l

in the r e s p o n s e s

three

to the pr in c i p l e

sh o w n in the p e r c e p t i o n s

to change

a n d three

sh ou ld ha ve

in p ra ct i c e s .

(3)

the right

student

of the

In c o m m e n t i n g

leaders

felt

that

to e x a m i n e all r e po rts

r e l a t i n g to h i m w h e t h e r p r e p a r e d on a c o n f i d e n t i a l basi s
or not.
that

Two

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

this p r i n c i p l e

over the

records.

word

(1) fac ul ty

ha d e n a b l e d t h e m to cl a r i f y

tices w h i c h has b r o u g h t
of st udent

and one

about

Two

" i n sp ec t"

(2)
and

an i m p r o v e m e n t
fac ul ty

felt

that

indicated
the words

have b e e n mo re a p p r o pr iate.

students

such a stat e m e n t was

that

now they kn ow e x a c t l y
personal
many

records.

Individual

where

Tw o

(2)

th ey

r e c o r d s were

leaders

retained

co n c e r n
"have
Two

(2)

long n e e d e d and

stand r e l a t i v e

student

their p r a c ­

in the area

interpreted" would
felt

felt

felt

to the ir
that

too

in too man y di ff e r e n t

places.
Table
the

15 p r e s e n t s

stat ement

that

the a n a l y s i s

evaluations

of the r e s p o n s e s

are ma de

to

only by persons

TABLE 14.— A student has the right to inspect rep ort s and ev aluations of his conduct,
except letters of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and simil ar eva luati on s w h i c h are ne c e s s a r i l y p r e ­
par ed on a c on fi de ntial basis,

Scale

a.

U ndes ir ab le

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

N

4

3

%

Highly
D es i r a b l e
Great
Change

N

%

N

5

%

N

%

Tot al

Students

a.
b.

2
22

2,7
39.3

4
12

5.5
21,4

5
14

6.8
25

13
5

17. 8
8.9

49
3

67.1
5,4

73
56

Student
Leaders

a. 1
b. 24

1.4
33.3

2
16

2,7
22.2

6
17

8.1
23.6

9
10

12,2
13,9

56
5

75.7
6.9

74
72

Fa cul ty

a.
b,

4
20

5-2
39.2

6
7

7.8
13.7

9
17

11.7
33,3

8
2

10. 4
3.9

50
5

64.9
9.8

77
51

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

4
10

5.8
18.9

7

10.1
28.3

10
15

14.5
28.3

13
10

18.8
18.9

35
3

50.7
5.7

69
53

Total

a.
b.

11
76

Mea n

a.
b.

4. 3
2. 4

15

19
50

30
63

std. :
Dev.

43
27
a.
b.

1.1
1.2

190
16

293
232

TAB LE 15 .— E v a l u at io ns of students are made only by persons qual i f i e d to make that
evaluation.

Scale

a.

Und esi ra bl e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

N

4

3

%

%

N

N

Highly
D e sir ab le
Great
Change
5

%

N

%

Tota l

Students

2
a.
b. 28

2.8
47.5

1
11

1.4
18.6

4
13

5.6
22

6
6

8.3
10.2

59
1

81.9
1.7

72
59

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
20

0.0
29

1
13

1.4
18.8

4
18

5.5
26.1

5
13

6.8
18.8

63
5

86.3
7.2

73
69

Facu lty

0
a.
b. 17

0.0
34.7

1
15

1.4
30.6

2
9

2.7
18.4

7
5

9.6
10.2

63
3

86.3
6.1

49
49

Adminis­
trators

a.

0
18

0.0
31

1
16

1.4
27.6

3
13

4.1
22.4

4
6

5.5
10.3

65
5

89
8.6

73
58

Total

a.
b.

2
83

Mean

a.
b.

4. 8
2, 3

4
55

S t d . Dev.

250
14

22
30

13
53
a.
b.

7
1. 2

291
235

qual i f i e d to ma ke that evalu ati on.

This p r i n c i p l e

was

p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g hig hl y de si r a b l e by more than eig ht y
per cent

(80%) of the total res pon de nt s.

The me a n r a t i n g

for the d e s i r a b i l i t y of this pr in c i p l e was
Ana lys is

of the r es pons es

show ed no d i f f e r e n c e in the

change of p r ac ti ce as p e r c e i v e d by the
mean r e spo ns e was
and three

2.3.

Two

four groups.

(2) students,

one

(1)

(7) students,

five

to be

the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.
(5) student

q u e s t i o n e d the d i f f i c u l t y
"qualified" p e r s o n to make
leaders,

The

faculty

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s b e l i e v e d this p r a c t i c e

in exi st en ce before

student

4.8.

two

leaders

and two

(2)

in d e t e r m i n i n g just who
such evalua tions .

(2) students,

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r c o m m e n t e d that

one

Seven

faculty
is a

Eight

(8)

(1) fa c u l t y and one

the e l i m i n a t i o n of e v a l u a ­

tions made by r e si dent a s s i s t a n t s was a d ef in ite move to
bri ng pra c t i c e s
Table

closer to this principle.

16 gives an a na ly si s

p ri nc ip le that

all pers on s

of the re sp o n s e s

handling confidential

to the
records

are instr u c t e d c o n c e r n i n g the c o n f i d e n t i a l nat ur e

of such

i n f o r ma ti on and c o n c e r n i n g th ei r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

regarding

it.

This was

found to be a hig hl y de si r a b l e

more than e i g h t y - s e v e n per cent
The m e a n r a t i n g was

pr in c i p l e by

(8 7 %) of all resp o n d e n t s .

4.8.

Some d i f f e r e n c e

e x isted in the op i n i o n s

of change with a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
of change than students.

on the degree

I n d i c a t i n g a g r e a t e r degree

The d i f f e r e n c e

a m o n g the

four

TABLE 16 .— All pe rs ons h a n d l i n g c o n f i de nt ia l records are i ns tr uc ted c o n c e r n i n g the
co nfid en ti al nature of such in f o r m a t i o n and c o n c e r n i n g their r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
r e g a r d i n g it.

Scale

a.

Un desirable

a.

b.

No change

b.

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Highly
De si r a b l e
Great
Change

%

N

Tot^l

Students

a. 0
b. 25

0.0
43.9

2
8

2.7
14

2
17

2.7
29.8

5
5

6.8
8.8

65
2

87.8
3.5

74
57

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
16

1.4
24.2

0
20

0.0
30.3

1
26

1.4
39.4

6
3

8.1
4.5

66
1

89.2
1.5

74
66

F a cul ty

a. 0
b. 16

0.0
32.7

2
13

2.6
26. 5

1
14

1.3
28.6

6
3

7.7
6.1

69
3

88.5
6,1

78
49

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0.0
21.9

]_

1.4
20.3

2
18

2,8
28.1

6
12

8.3
18.8

63
7

87.5
10.9

72
64

Total

a. 1
b. 71

Mea n

a.
K

0 1
14 _

13

5
54

DP 12 x 2 25,24

a.
K

298
236

263
13

23
23

S t d . Dev.

4.8
O ll

Scale b.

6
75

-

.6
1 0

Signi fic ant at

.05 level

groups was
fidence.

found to be s ig nifi ca nt
Four

stated that

at the

(4) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and three

this had been the p r a c t i c e

prior to the Report.

Three

(1) faculty m em b e r felt that
encourage an improvement
there has b e e n some

at the Univers it y

this p r i n c i p l e

in p r a c t i c e s

to be abus es

Four

felt that

how persons w i t h such r e s p o n s i b i l i t y were
there wo u l d contin ue

div is io ns

policies.

leaders

served to

in th i s area since

in di ca t i o n of vario us

(6) student

(3) faculty

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and one

U n i v e r s i t y to formula te reco rd s
dents and six

.05 level of c o n ­

(4)

of the
stu­

regardless

of

instructed,

in the us e of student

records.
Di f f e r e n c e s are no t e d a m o n g the
analysis

of the p rinci pl e

faculty or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
of a stu den t's
out the expr es s
Table

staff has access

offenses against

to the recor d

University

p e r m i s s i o n of the

at the

in the

s t a t i n g that no one outside the

17 shows a diff e r e n c e

si gni ficant

four groups

student

a m o n g the

regulations w i t h ­
in writing.

four groups

.01 level of confidence.

that

is

The p r i n c i p l e

was p e r c e i v e d to be d es ir ab le wi t h a mean rati ng of 4.3
on

the 5 point

scale.

to find the pri n c i p l e

Stu dent s

and student

leaders t e nd ed

sli gh tly more d e s i r a b l e than did

faculty and ad mini st ra to rs.
Di f f e r e n c e s
to change
degree

are not ed

in practices.

in the a n a l y s i s

F a c u l t y tend e d to

in the change of p r a c t i c e s

of the responses
see a grea ter

than the other three

TAB LE 17 .— No one ou tside the faculty or ad m i n i s t r a t i v e staff has access to the reco rd
of a s t u d e n t ’s offenses against U n i v e r s i t y r eg ul at ions w i th out the express p e r m i s s i o n
of the student in writing.

Scale

a.

Un desirabl e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

N

4

3

%

N

Highly
De si r a b l e
Great
Change

%

5

%

N

N

%

Tot al

Students

a.
b.

5
22

6.8
37.9

2
10

2,7
17.2

5
13

6.8
22.4

6
11

8.1
19.0

56
2

75.7
3.4

75
58

Student

a.
b

2
23

2.7
33.8

3
9

4.1
13.2

5
18

6.8
26.5

1
12

1.4
17.6

63
6

85.1
8.8

68

Faculty

a.
b.

8
14

10. 4
30.4

6
12

7.8
26.1

11
8

14.3
17.4

12
8

15.6
17-4

40
4

51.9
8.7

77
46

Adminis­
trators

a.
5
b. 10

7.2
20.8

2
1

2.9
2.1

10
15

14.5
31.3

9
12

13
25

43
10

62.3
20,8

69
48

Total

a.
b.

Mea n

a.
b.

20
69

13
32

4. 3
2. 6

Std.

Dev.

a.
b.

294
220

202
22

28
43

31
54

7h

1.2
1.4

Scale a.

DF

12 x2 26.41

Significant at

.01 level

Scale b.

DF

12 x 2 23.66

Signi fi ca nt at

.05 level

groups.
at the

Difference

a m o n g the four grou ps was

s i g n i fi ca nt

.05 level of confide nce .
Th r e e

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

felt

that

this p r i n c i p l e

had been p r a c t i c e d by the U n i v e r s i t y pri or to the Report.
Two

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

that

the p r a c t i c e

that

the

student

and two

(2) f a culty m e m b e r s

of this p r i n c i p l e

was a d i c h o t o m y

and tw o (2)

s i t y ’s p r a c t i c e s
Four

(4)

shoul d have

students and three
faculty

f a c u l t y stated that

shoul d be the

f a cu lt y memb er s

security

same

access to such

(3) student

statement

18 shows

the aca de mi c

Little d i f f e r e n c e

appe ars

L i kew is e,
the p e r c e p t i o n s

scale

for the r e s p o n s e s

status

a m o n g the

for the

there app ea rs

Thr ee

(3)

to such inf or ma ti on.

ciple is p e r c e i v e d to be h i g h l y
mean r a t i n g on the

approach.

for n a t i o n a l

in formation.

of a c a d e m i c

i n f o r m a t i o n about

(2)

l e ad er s c o m m e n t e d that

the a n a l y s i s

that t r a n s c r i p t s

a g en ci es

Two

the U n i v e r ­

as s o c i e t y ' s

s t a t e d that

s h ou ld not have ac ce ss

T a ble

in

is p r o t e c t e d by such p r a c t i c e s w h e n in

d i f f i c u l t y but o t h e r w i s e b e l i e v e d to be mature.
administrators

felt

record
of the

as

four groups

to be

of the r e s p o n d e n t s

c o n t a i n only
student.

four groups.

des i r a b l e

to the

The

shown by the
at

4.4.

little d i f f e r e n c e
relative

prin­

to change

in
in

practices.
Four

(4) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

comm e n t e d that

this

Report.

(3)

Thre e

and thre e

(3)

had b e e n the p r a c t i c e
s t ude nt s

and

four

(4)

student

le ad ers

p r i o r to the
student

leaders

TABLE 18.— T ra nscri pt s of academ ic rec or d cont ain only in f o r m a t i o n about the
aca dem ic status of the student.

Scale

a.

Un de si rabl e

a.

b.

No Change

b

N

1 %

N

N

2 %

3 %

N

4 %

N

.

5 *

Highly
Desira bl e
Great
Change
TOT AL

Students

a.
b.

3
24

4.1
39.3

2
12

2.7
19.7

8
13

11
21.3

10
6

13.7
9.8

50
6

68.5
9.8

73
61

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
20

1.4
29.4

5
9

6.8
13.2

8
19

10.8
27.9

5
14

6.8
20.6

55
6

74.3
8,8

74
68

Faculty

a.
b.

6
19

7.9
38.8

2
12

2.6
24.5

8
7

10.5
14.3

6
8

7.9
16.3

54
3

71.1
6.1

76
49

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

4
21

5.5
38

2
5

2.7
9.3

14
12

19.2
22.2

5
6

6.8
11.1

48
10

65.8
18,5

73
54

Total

a.
b.

14
84

Mea n

a.
b.

4. 4
2. 5

11
38 ,

26
3^

38
51
Std . Dev.

a.
b.

1.1
1.4

207
25

296
232

su gges te d that

organizations

included with the t ra nscri pt

and act iv it ies
of record.

Table 19 presents the ana ly sis
p ri nc iple
zations,
belief,

s t a t i n g that m e m b e r s h i p

or action,

no s i g n i f i c a n t

lists of student

are not retained.

No signi fi ca nt
the four groups
Two

less d e si rable th an most,
groups.

for the four groups was

difference

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and one

m e n t a t i o n of the Report.

(3)

faculty and one

if the o r g a n i z a t i o n goes against

leaders,

int e re st s

one

in practices.

bef or e the

su gg e s t e d that r e c o r d s of m e m b e r s h i p

counter to the best

3-9.

(1) f a c u l t y p e rson

in existence

Thr ee

The

existed in the r es po nses of

in their opi nion s to the cha ng e

stated that the pra ctice was

student

organi­

A lth ou gh the p ri nc iple

difference wa s noted among the

mean r a t i n g on the scale

tained

of r e s p o n s e s to the

e s p e c i a l l y those r e l a t e d to matters of poli t i c a l

was p e r c e i v e d to be sl ig htly

student

sho ul d be

the

imple­
(1)

should br

main­

law or is

of the University.

Two

(2)

(1) faculty an d a d m i n i s t r a t o r ex pr e s s e d

a c o n c e r n that

such i n f o r m a t i o n was retained by the D e p a r t ­

ment

Safety.

of Public
Three

(3)

student

that m e m b e r s h i p lists

le aders

and one

dent

leaders

felt

sho ul d be m a i n t a i n e d and shou ld be

a c c e s s i b l e to anyone in the University.
(2) student

(1) student

c o m m e n t e d that

Two

(2) students

the m e m b e r s h i p of a s t u ­

in an o r g a n i z a t i o n shoul d be retaine d if the student

requests.

and

so

TABLE 19=— M e m b e r s h i p lists of student orga niz ations , es pe c i a l l y those rel at ed
to m a tt er s of po li t i c a l belief, or action, are not retained.

Sca le

a-.

Un de si rable

a.

b.

No Change

b.

N

N

N

N

%

Highly
Desir ab le
Great
Change

N

TOTAL

Students

a.
b.

4
21

5.6
36.8

3
13

4,2
2 2,8

18
17

25
29. 8

15
5

20.8
8.8

32
1

44,4
1,8

72
57

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

5
20

6.8
28.6

4
20

5.4
28.6

11
14

14.9
20

12
10

16.2
14.3

42
6

56.8
8.6

74
70

Faculty

a.
b.

8
15

10, 4
35.7

9
8

11,7
19

14
10

18.2
23.8

8
7

10.4
16.7

38
2

49.4
4.8

77
42

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

10
16

14.1
33.3

10
7

14.1
14.6

12
11

16.9
22.9

5
4

7
8.3

34
10

47.9
20. 8

71
48

Total

a.
b.

27
72

Mean

a.
b.

3.9
2.4

26
48

40
26

55
52
Std.

Dev.

a.
b.

1.4
1.3

146
19

294
217

Regulati on , Rules and
Student Conduct
Tabl e
that

20 gives an an al ysis

the e nf orce me nt

society

of the

of r e sp onse s

to the pri n c i p l e

student s dutie s to the larger

is left to legal and ju di cial a u t h o ri ti es duly

established

for that purpose.

found a m o n g the
principle.

four groups

No signif icant

d if feren ce was

on the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the

The mean r espon se on the scale was

4.3,

indicat­

ing the p r i n c i p l e was pe rc e i v e d to be desirable.
No signi fi ca nt

di ff e r e n c e was found a m ong the groups

in the change of practices.
One

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r and one

cated that

(1) fa culty p e r s o n i n d i ­

this had been the p r ac ti ce

at the U n i v e r s i t y p ri o r

to the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.

Two

(2) fac u lt y and one

felt that the neglec t

of the stu den ts
University

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r

and th ere fore ,

the

student

(1) student b e l i e v e d that

p l a c i n g the

student

leaders a n d one

(1)

in double

(5) student

the Univ er s i t y was
Two

leaders
still

(2) student

faculty m e m b e r cited the r e s o l u t i o n
as an exam ple of ho w this

21 inc ludes the a n al ys is

that

an a c adem ic
the

Five

has been violated.

Tab le
p ri nc ip le

should be a c c o u nt able

jeopardy.

pa ss e d by the Board of T r us te es
pr in c i p l e

two

duti es to so ci et y may also infringe upon the

to both soc ie ty and the U niv ersity.
and one

(2) students,

only where the

Institution's

c o m m u n i t y are d i s t i n c t

special a u t h o r i t y

of the

of res po nses to the
interests

and c l e ar ly

as

i n vo lv ed is

i n s t i t u t i o n a ss er te d in

TA BL E 20,— The enfo rc em en t of the students duties to the larger soci et y is
left to legal and jud icia l au th oriti es duly es t a b l i s h e d for that purpose.

Scale

a.

Un des irab le

a.

b.

No Change

b.

N

%

N

%

%

N

N

%

N

Highly
Desirable
Great
Change

%

TOTA L

a.
b.

4
17

5.4
27.4

2
20

2.7
32.3

10
14

13.5
22.6

14
8

18.9
12.9

44
3

59.5
4.8

74
62

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
18

1.4
25

3
19

4,1
2 6 .4

7
21

9.5
29.2

13
13

17.6
18.1

50
1

ST.6

74
72

Fa cu lty

a.
b.

3
13

3.9
23.6

2
12

2.6
21.8

9
16

11.7
29.1

14
11

18.2
20

49
3

63.6
5.5

IT

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

4
11

5.6
17.7

4
11

5.6
17.7

11
17

15.5
27,4

14
14

19.7
22.6

38
9

53.5
14.5

71
62

Total

a.
b.

12
59

Mean

a.
b.

4.3
2.6

11
62

37
68
Std.

55
46
1Dev.

a.
b.

1.1
1.2

181
16

1.4

55

296
251

103

Students

a.

U n d e s i ra bl e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

N

%

N

3

%

%

N

N

Highly
D es ir able
Great
Change
5

M

2

1

-Cr

Scale

|

1

TA BL E 21.— Only where the i n s t i t u t i o n ’s in terest s as an academic community
are dis tinct and clearly inv ol ve d is the special a ut ho rity of the i n s t i t u ­
tion as s e r t e d in add iti on to p e n a l t i e s p r e s c r i b e d by civil authorities.

N

%

TOT AL

Students

a.
b.

4
23

5.6
37.7

1
12

1.4
19.7

11
19

15.5
31.1

18
4

25.4
6,6

37
3

52.1
4.9

71
61

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

8
23

11
32. 4

3
10

4.1
14.1

13
24

17.8
33.8

11
13

15.1
18.3

38
1

52.1
1,4

73
71

Faculty

a.
b.

2
6

2.6
12.5

3
16

3.9
33.3

9
12

11.8
25

12
11

15.8
22.9

50
3

65. 8
6.3

76
48

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

6
9

8.5
14,8

5
8

7
13.1

4
19

5.6
31.1

10
12

14,1
19.7

46
13

64.8
21.3

71
61

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

20
6l
4.2
2,6

Me a n

Scale b.

12
46

DP 12 x 2 41.75

37
74
Std. Dev.

a.
b.

51
40
1.2
1.3

S ig ni ficant at

171
20

.01 level

291
241

add i t i o n to p e n a l t i e s

p r e s c r i b e d by civil aut hor it ie s.

signi fic ant d i f f e r e n c e was

found am o n g the groups r e g a r d i n g

the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the princ ipl e.
the four groups was

4.2,

No

The m e a n re s p o n s e

for

i n d i c a t i n g the p r i n c i p l e to be

.desirable.
The de gr e e to whic h r e s p o n d e n t s

bel i e v e d p r a c t i c e s

have c h an ge d w i t h i n the U n i v e r s i t y b e ca use

of the

tion of the Report

showed a signi fi ca nt

four groups at the

.01 level of con fidence.

to

implementa­

d i f f e r e n c e a m o n g the
More

change was

p e r c e i v e d to have o c c u r r e d by the faculty and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
than by

students an d student

One

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r ,

leader felt that there were
sity's

one

(1)

(1) student

should assert

Three

by civil author it ies.

(3) student

in the

One

(1)

student and one

(1)

the U n i v e r s i t y sho ul d pro tect

questionnaire

stated

m u l a t i n g and r e v i s i n g r e g u l a t i o n s
for this pr in c i p l e

student
students

and society.
the pr in c i p l e

student s p a r t i c i p a t e to the m a x i m u m extent

The analys is

leaders

in a d d i t i o n to those p r e s c r i b e d

and serve as a b u f f e r b e t w e e n the student
Item 20

in the U n i v e r ­

co mm e n t e d that the U n i v e r s i t y never

its a u t h o r i t y

imp li ed that

faculty and one student

inconsistencies

a p p r o a c h to this practice.

and one

leader

leaders.

fea sib le

g o v e r n i n g student

is shown in Table

p rinc ip le was p e r c e i v e d to be high l y des ir able

as

in f o r ­
conduct.

22.

in the

resp o n s e s was

sig ni fican t

at the

The

Ind ic at ed

by the mean r e s p o n s e of the fo ur groups of 4.5 on the
difference

that

scale,

.01 level

T A B L E 22c— Stu dents p a r t i ci pa te to the m a x i m u m extent fea sible in fo r m u l a t i n g
and r e v i s i n g r e g u l at io ns g o v e r n i n g student c o n d u c t e

Scale

a

.

b.

Un desi ra bl e

a.

No Change

b.

1

2

N

%

N

4

3
%

Highly
Desira bl e
Great
Change

N

N

%

5
%

N

%

TOT AL

Students

a*
b.

1
5

1.4
7.8

2
15

2.7
23. 4

7
22

9.5
34.4

16
12

21.6
18.8

48
10

64.9
15.6

74
64

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

2
10

2.7
13.7

1
10

1.4
13.7

2
24

2.7
32.9

5
17

6.8
23.3

64
12

86.5
16.4

74
73

Faculty

a.
b.

1
3

1.3
5.4

4
5

5.3
8.9

16
19

21.1
33.9

11
17

14.5
30.4

44
12

57.9
21.4

76
56

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0
5

0
7.6

0
6

0
9.1

11
19

15.3
28.8

15
19

20.8
28.8

46
17

63.9
25.8

72
66

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

4
23
4.5
3.3

Mean

Scale a.

7
36

DF

12 x 2 29.88

36
84
Std. Dev.

a.
b.

47
65
.9
1.2

Si gni fic ant at

202
51

.01 level

296
259

of con fi denc e.

Ei ghty - s i x per cent

(86$) of the

student

leaders c o n s i d e r e d the p r i n c i p l e to be high ly de sir ab le
(rating of 5), while only
faculty m a r k e d

f i f t y - s e v e n per cent

it accord in gly .

A l t h o u g h the r es po ns es
that

some

( 5 7 % ) of the

of the

four groups

ind ic ated

chan ge in prac t i c e s had o c c u r r e d since the i m p l e ­

m e n t a t i o n of the Report,

no

si gn if icant d i f f e r e n c e was noted.

The me a n r e s p o n s e on the Scale b for the four groups was
Eleven
felt

(11)

that a l t h o u g h

tion in the
enough.

(4) student

(1) student

com­

should f or mu la te r e g u l a t i o n s by
Three

(3) students

l e a d e r took the opp o s i t e view,

and one

i n d i c a t i n g that

(1)
the

should be a shar ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with

faculty and a d m inis tr at io n.
administrator

(3) students

it was not nea rl y

leaders and one

are to live.

f o r m u l a t i o n of rules

involved

and three

students had bee n gra nted some p a r t i c i p a ­

students alone

w h i c h stud en ts
student

leaders

fo r m u l a t i o n of reg ul at io ns,

Fo u r

me nt e d that

student

3*3*

Two

(2)

faculty and one

(1)

felt that

stu den ts

can become e x c e s s i v e l y

in the process

and that

representation

from the total Univers it y

community.

that

of the student made total p a r t i c i ­

the tran sient

status

Three

is ne ce s s a r y

(3) stu dents

felt

p a tio n que stion ab le .
An a n al ys is
re g u l a t i o n s

of r espo ns es

g o v e r n i n g student

an a p p r o p r i a t e ma nn e r ap p e a r s

to the
conduct
in Table

statemen t

that all

are made public
23.

in

Two h u n d r e d and

T A B L E 23c— All reg ula ti on s g o v e r n i n g student conduct are made publ ic
an app ro pr iate manner.

Scale

a.

Un de si r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1

N

2

2

3

N

!

6

N

Highly
D e sir ab le
Great
Change
5

^

?

in

N

$

N

%

TOTA L

a.
b.

0
12

0c 0
19.4

0
23

0.0
37,1

4
8

5.4
12.9

8
13

10. 8
21

62
6

83.8
9.7

74
62

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
15

1.4
20. 5

1
11

1.4
15.1

3
25

4.1
34. 2

3
16

4.1
21.9

66
6

89.2
8.2

74
73

Facul ty

a.
b,

1
8

1.3
14. 3

0
5

0.0
8.9

3
23

3.9
41,1

6
12

7.8
21.4

67
8

87
14.3

77
56

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

1
6

1.4
9.4

1
12

1.4
18.8

2
16

2.7
25

5
18

6.8
28.1

64
12

87.7
18.8

73
64

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

3
4l
4.8
3.0

Mea n

Scale b.

2
51

DF

12 x 2 30.77

12
72
Std.. Dev

a.
b.

22
59
.6
1.3

Si gni ficant at

259
32

.01 level

298
255

108

Students

109

fifty nine

(259)

or e i g h t y - s e v e n per cent

r e s p o n d i n g m a r k e d the p r i n c i p l e
The

(87%)

as h i g h l y desirable.

four groups p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e s

in the extent

to whi c h pr ac t i c e s had changed.

The d i f f e r e n c e

r e spo ns es of the four groups was

s ig ni fi cant

level

of confidence.
One

student

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r ,

leaders

e f f e c ti ve ly
student

Stu dents

leaders

felt that

be tt er job of this.
faculty member
times

two

One

felt that

Two

(2)

han d b o o k

(2) student

One

(1)

(1)

faculty,

one

(3)

(1)

ap pe a r at d iffe re nt
and that only one

fa cu lty m e m b e r and two

One

(1)

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r an d one

leader q u e s t i o n e d the numb er

(4)

could do a mu ch

indi c a t e d that the Tr u s t e e s

r e s o l u t i o n v i o l a t e d this principle.

change.

and three

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r and one
regulations

.01

have been

(2) s t ude nt s

the U n i v e r s i t y

is needed.

leaders

at the

student s and four

in too many d if f e r e n t p u b l i c a t i o n s

student

in the

p e r c e i v e d the least

c o m m e n t e d that r e g u l a t i o n s

comm unic ate d.

of those

su sp en s i o n

student,

one

(1) student

of per so ns who read the r e g u ­

lations .
No signi fi ca nt
groups
tions

difference

ex i s t e d a m o n g the

on the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the p r i n c i p l e
r e l a t i n g to the

c o m m u n i c a t i o n of ideas

the c o m p e t i t i o n of ideas.
very d e s i r a b l e as
in Tab l e
scale was

24.
4.1.

The

pr in c i p l e was

in di c a t e d in the a n a l y s i s

The m e a n r e s p o n s e

for the

that

four
regula­

shall e n co ur age
found to be
of r e s p o n s e s

four groups

on the

TABLE 24.— Re gu latio ns r e la ti ng to the c o m m u n i c a t i o n of ideas
the c om pe titio n of ideas,

shall e nco urage

Scale

a-

Unde si ra bl e

a.

b-

No Change

b.

1
N

0/0

2

3
N

%

^
%

N

N

Highly
Desi r a b l e
Great
Change

5
%

N

%

TOTA]

Students

a.
b.

4
19

5,7
31,7

4
13

4,3
21,7

13
19

18,6
31.7

12
7

17,1
11.7

38
2

54,3
3,3

70
60

Student
Leaders

a,
b,

8
18

11,1
26,5

6
22

8,3
32.4

11
15

15.3
22.1

9
10

12.5
14.7

38
3

52.8
4,4

72
68

Faculty

a.
b.

5
12

8.5
27.9

1
12

1.7
27, 9

7'
13

11.9
30.2

13
4

22
9,3

33
2

55.9
4.7

59
43

Adminis­
trators

a.
b,

3
12

4,6
21, 8

5
14

7.7
25.5

10
17

15= 4
30.9

8
9

12,3
16,4

39
3

60
5,5

65
55

Total

a.
b.

20
61

Me a n

a.
b.

4,1
2,4

15
61

41
64
Std,

42
30
Dev.

a,
b.

1.3
1.1

148
10

266
226

Ill

The four groups perceived the deg re e of change
practice s to be about

the same.

No signi fi ca nt

in

difference

existed in the responses.
Three

(3) faculty and three

opposed to the principle,

(3) student

i n d i c a t i n g that r e g u l a t i o n s

lating to the c o m m u n i c a t i o n of ideas
exist.
(1)

Two

(2) adm in is trat or s,

student

l e ad er felt that

one

Two

simply

re­

should not

(1) student and one

the State News v i o l a t e d this

pr in cip le by p r e s e n t i n g opi nions
news.

leaders were

r a t h e r than t r a n s m i t t i n g

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and two

(2) faculty c o m m e n t e d

that the p r i n c i p l e was most a p p r o p r i a t e but

could be

subject

to abuse.
Table
pri nc ipl e

25 gives an an al ysis

of the r es pons es

to the

s t a t i n g that there is a d e m o n s t r a b l e need

for

each r e g u l a t i o n w h i c h is r e la te d to the basic pu r p o s e s of
the Uni ve rs it y.

Faculty tended to p e rc eive

this p r i n c i p l e

to be sl i g h t l y more des ir able t h a n did students,
leaders and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
the

A significant

student

difference

at

.05 level of c o n f i d e n c e was dem on st ra ted.
Administrators

greater de gr e e

and faculty p e r c e i v e d a sli ghtly

in the change of p r a c t i c e s r e l a t i n g to this

pri nc ipl e t h a n did the oth e r two

groups.

in the r e s p o n s e s of the groups w a s

The d i f f e r e n c e

s ig ni fi cant at the

.05

level of confid ence .
Two
student

(2) a d m i ni st ra tors,

felt

that

one

the statement

(1) faculty,

and one

(1)

was o v e r - g e n e r a l i z e d and

TA B L E 25.— There is a d em o n s t r a b l e need for such r e g u l a t i o n w h i c h is rela te d
to the basic p u rp oses and n e c e s si ties of the Uni versity.

Scale

a.

U n d e s ir able

a.

b.

No Chang e

b.

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

Highly
D e sir ab le
Great
Cha ng e

%

TO T A L

Students

a.
b.

5
21

6.8
34.4

2
14

2.7
23.0

12
19

16. 2
31.1

21
7

28.4
11.5

34
0

35.9
0.0

74
61

Student
Lead ers

a.
b.

3
17

4.1
23.3

5
24

6.8
32.9

8
20

10.8
27.4

13
11

17.6
15.1

45
1

60.8
1.4

74
73

Faculty

a.
b.

1
10

1.4
19.2

2
15

2.8
28.8

3
12

4.2
23.1

9
10

12.7
19.2

56
5

78.9
9.6

71
52

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

1
5

1.5
8.9

1
16

1.5
28.6

9
25

13.4
44.6

14
8

20.9
14.3

42
2

62.7
3.6

67
56

Tot al

a.
b.
a.
b

Mea n

.

10
69

10
53

32
76
Std. Dev.

4.3
2.5

57
38
a.
b.

177
8

1.0
1.1

Scale a.

DF

12 x

23.40

Si gnifican t at

.05 level

Scale b.

DF

12 x 2 24,97

S i g n i fica nt at

.05 level

286
242

113

coul d not be I m p l e m e n t e d unti l the n a tu re

and p u r p o s e s of

the U n i v e r s i t y have

been id ent ifie d.

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

thre e

and one

(3) students,

necessity

students

felt that

w o u l d be no more
two

faculty

for s p ec ific r e g u l a t i o n s

d e f i n e d and c o m m u n i c a t e d .
(2)

(1)

Five

if this

Two

needs

two

to be more

(5) stu dent

Tw o

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

m e m b e r e x p r e s s e d the o p in io n that
the U n i v e r s i t y to mo re

c l os el y

and two

followed,

(2) stu den t
and one

the p r i n c i p l e

scrutinize

clearly

lea ders

p r i n c i p l e were

social re g u l a t i o n s .

(2) students,

c o m m e n t e d that the

(1)

there

lead er s,
faculty

had caus ed

its e x i s t i n g r e g u ­

lations .
The r e s p o n s e s
penalt ie s

to the

st at e m e n t

that p r o c e d u r e s

for v i o l a t i o n of r e g u l a t i o n s

are d e s i g n e d

g ui da nce or c o r r e c t i o n of b e h a v i o r r a t h e r than
tion are found in Tabl e
app e a r e d

26.

in the r e s p o n s e s

No s i g n i f i c a n t

to e i t h e r

Scale

pr in c i p l e was p e r c e i v e d to be d e s i r a b l e
mea n r e sp on se
Four

of 4.6 o n

the five point

(4) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

faculty and one

(1)

had been a p r a c t i c e
ti on of the Report.

student

two

le ad e r

(2)

for

for r e t r i b u ­

difference

a or Scale b.

The

as i n d i c a t e d by the
scale.
students,

felt

that

in the U n i v e r s i t y be fo r e

two

(2)

this p r i n c i p l e
the

implementa­

(2)

facul ty p e r s o n s

i n d i c a t e d that

the U n i v e r s i t y

s h ou ld not be

in the b u s i n e s s

of g u ida nc e

c o r r e c t i o n and

shou ld only t e a c h or instruct.

student

leader,

felt that

two

penalties

Two

and

(2) s t ud en ts
shou ld be

and one

One

or

(1)

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r

severe e n o u g h to prevent

a

TABLE 26 =— Procedu res and pe na l t i e s for v io la ti on of r e g u l a t i o n are des i gn ed
for gui dan ce or corre ct io n of be h a v i o r rat her than for retribution.

Scale

a.

Und es ir ab le

a.

b,

No Change

b.

N

N

N

N

%

Highly
De si r a b l e
Great
Change

N

TOT A L

a,
b
,

2
26

2,7
41,9

1
11

1.4
17.7

6
15

8,1
24,2

10
6

13,5
9.7

55
4

74,3
6.5

74
62

Student
Leaders

a,
b
.

2
22

2,7
30,1

2
12

2J7
1 6 ,,4

3
22

4.1
30,1

14
13

18.9
17.8

53
4

71.6
5.5

74
73

Fa cul ty

a,
b.

2
8

2,7
15,7

0
15

0.0
2 9 ,4

3
18

4.0
35.3

13
7

17.3
13.7

57
3

76.0
5.9

75
51

Adminis­
trators

a,
b.

1
.15
I

1.4
25,9

1
12

1.4
20.7

9
14

12.9
24.1

9
13

12.9
22.9

50
4

71.4
6.9

70
58

Total

a,
b.

'7
71

Me an

a,
b.

4,6
.2,5

Students

4
50

21
69
Std.

46
39
Dev

a.
b.

.9
1.2

215
15

293
244

r e - o c c u r r e n c e of mi sco ndu ct.
two

Two

(2) students obse rv ed that

(2)

the

student

san ct ions

U n i v e r s i t y appear to be d e s i g n e d more
One

faculty m e m b e r

l ega li st ic

(1) student

through the p ro ce du ral due p r oc es s
statement

in that

behavioral

and one

approach presented

is c o n t r a d i c t o r y

the emp h a s i s moves

regula t i o n s
pr inci p l e s

fr om guidance

25 of the

seek the best

questionnaire

po s s i b l e

are a nal yz ed in Tab l e

on the

5 point

in practices.

students,

27.

scale was

three

(3)

Two

order.

of e xce ss iv e
(2)

freedom.
student

Three

(3)

student

difference

in r es pons es
two

to

(2)

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

o r d e r had suf f e r e d at the hands

On the other hand,

two

in di c a t e d that

(2) stu dents

the rig idit y

far e x c e e d e d the nece s s a r y order.

leaders

r e l a t i n g to this p ri n c i p l e
students

The mean

A .7•

(2) student leaders,

leaders

of social regul a t i o n s

The

The p r in ci pl e was p e r ­

faculty and three

c om m e n t e d that n ecess ar y

and two

to

r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the

of m a x i m u m f r e e d o m and n e c e s s a r y

There was no s i g n i fi ca nt
change

to this

states that all

ceived to be high ly desi r a b l e by all four groups.
respons es

(1)

correction.

Item numb er

r esp onses

im posed by the

for r e t r i b u t i o n than

for c o r r e c t i o n of behavior.
felt that the

leaders and

felt

that

chan ge s

came about

e x e r t i n g their r i g h t s

m e n t a t i o n of this principle.

in pra ct ic es

only as a result

r a th er than thr ou gh

of

imple­

T AB L E 27,— All reg ula ti on s seek the best pos s i b l e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the
m a x i m u m fr e e d o m and n e c e s s a r y order,

Scale

a.

U ndes ir ab le

a.

b.

No Chang e

b.

1
N

2

%

N

4

3

%

%

N

N

Highly
Desirabl e
Great
Change
5

%

N

%

TOTAL

Students

a.
b.

0
16

0.0
26.2

2
13

2.7
21, 3

4
17

5,5
27,9

15
15

20.5
24.6

52
0

71.2
0.0

73
61

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
14

1.4
19.2

2
14

2.7
19.2

4
23

5.4
31.5

10
15

13.5
20.5

57
7

77
9.6

74
73

Faculty

a.
b.

0
7

0,0
13.7

1
9

1.4
17.6

1
19

1.4
37.3

10
14

13.7
27.5

61
2

83.6
3.9

73
51

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

3
14

4,3
23.3

0
15

0,0
25

1
16

1.4
26.7

12
10

17.1
16.7

54
5

77.1
8.3

70
60

Total

a.
b.

4
51

Mean

a.
b.

4,7
2.7

5
51

10
75
Std.

47
54
Dev.

a.
b.

0.8
1.2

224
14

290
245

117

Table
principle

28 pr e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s

for the appeal an d r e v i e w of the

in an a l l e g e d violation of a regu lat ion.

was p e r c e i v e d to be highly d e s i r a b l e
e l t h t y - f o u r per cent
it as a 5 on the
Student
that

students.

in p rac tices had o c c u r r e d than did
of the d i f f e r e n c e

such p r o c e d u r e s we r e
Thr ee

(1) student

in e x is te nce b e f o r e

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

had bee n i m pr ov ed to implement
leaders

channels

in the r e ­

.01 level of confidence.

(2) facu lt y and one

the Report.

by all four groups with

faculty and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s b e l i e v e d

significa nce

sponses was at the
Two

The p r i n c i p l e

(84$?) of all the r e s p o nd ents r a t i n g

leaders,

The

f i nd in g of

scale.

g r ea ter cha ng e

student

to the

s t at ing that clearly d e f i n e d channels and p r o ­

cedures exist
guilt

of the re sponses

a n d two

are not

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of

felt that p r o c e d u r e s

this princ ipl e.

(2) stu dent s

and p r o c e d u r e s

leader s t a t e d that

Six

(6)

co mm e n t e d that the

cle ar ly d e fined or that

the

process has been too slow.
Tabl e
pri nc ipl e

s t a t i n g that

dures exist
under the

29 shows the a n al ys is

of the resp on se s to

clearly d e f i n e d

channels and p r o c e ­

for the appeal and r e v i e w of the r ea so na b l e n e s s ,

c i r c um stanc es ,

of the p e n a l t y

im posed for a

specific vi ola ti on .

The mean of the r es po ns es

four groups was

i n d i c a t i n g the p r i n c i p l e

desirable.

the

4.7,

Littl e

difference was

for the
to be h i g h l y

shown in the r e s p o n s e s

of

TA B L E 28 c— Clea rly def in ed channels and proce d u r e s exist for the appeal and
r e v i e w of the find ing of guilt in an a l l e g e d v io l a t i o n of a regulation.

Scale

a.

Un d e s i r a b l e

a.

b.

No Cha nge

b.

2

1
N

%

N

4

3

%

Highly
D es ir able
Great
Change

%

N

N

5

%

N

%

TOT A L

Students

a.
b.

1
15

1.4
24.6

0
14

0.0
23

3
25

4.1
41

9
6

12.2
9.8

61
1

82.4
1.6

74
61

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

2
11

2.7
15.1

2
8

2.7
11

0
14.

0.0
19.2

5
26

6.8
35.6

65i
14

87.8
19.2

7^
73

Faculty

a.
b.

1
8

1.3
14

1
5

1.3
8.8

1’
11

1.3
19.3

6
23

7.8
40. 4

68
10

88.3
17.5

77
57

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

0
8

0.0
11.9

0
11

0.0
16.4

6
21

8.3
31.3

8
18

11.1
26.9

58
9

80.6
13.4

72
67

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

4
42
4.8
3.1

Me a n

Scale b .

3
38

DF

-i„ 2
12 x
36.92

10
71
StdI. Dev.

a.
b.

28
73
.7
1.3

Significan t at

252
34

.01 level

297
258

T A B L E 29.— Clearly def i ne d channels and pr oc e d u r e s exist for the appeal and
review of the rea son able ne ss , under the ci rcumstanc es, of the p e nalty imp os ed
for a specific violation,,

Scale

a.

U n d e s ir able

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2
%

3
N

%

N

^
%

N

Highly
Des ir abl e
Great
Change

5
%

N

%

TOTAJ

Students

a.
b.

0
12

0.0
19.7

2
19

2.7
31.1

1
17

1.4
27.9

14
12

18.9
19.7

57
1

77
1.6

74
61

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

2
8

2.7
11. 3

1
11

1.4
15.5

2
26

2.7
36.6

7
17

9.5
23.9

62
9

83.8
12,7

74
71

Fac ult y

a.
b.

1
4

1.3
7.7

0
6

0.0
11.5

4
15

5.3
28.8

9
19

12
36.5

61
8

81.3
15.4

75
52

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

1
8

1.4
12.1

1
7

1.4
10,6

7
26

9.7
39.4

8
13

11.1
19.7

55
12

76.4
18,2

72
66

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

4
32
4.7
3.1

Mean

Scale b.

4
43

DF

1 0 x 2 27.30
12

14
84
Std. Dev

a.
b.

38
61
.7
1.2

Sig nif ic an t at

235
30

.01 level

295
250

120

(79 %)

the four groups with s e v e n t y - n i n e per cent
respondents

r a t i n g the d e s i r a b i l i t y at 5 on the

Faculty,
to perceive

student

cant at the
Two
student

of change

The d i f f e r e n c e

ten ded

in p r a c t i c e s t h a n

in the r e s p o n s e s was

signifi­

.01 level of confidence.

(2) students,

two

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

and one

(1)

lead er c o m m e n t e d that now the cha nn el s ha ve bee n

r eg ulariz ed,
(2)

scale.

leaders and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

a greater degree

did students.

of the

student

the app ea l p r oc es s

is much more explicit.

leaders c o m m e n t e d that the

bill passed by A.S.M .S. U.

has

Two

student d e f e n d e r s

insu red the

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of

this principle.
The re sp o n s e s

to item 28 are s u m m a r i z e d in Tabl e

30.

The pri n c i p l e

sta t in g that

clea rl y d e f i n e d cha n n e l s and p r o ­

cedures exist

for the appeal and r e v i e w of the s u b s t a n c e

a r e g u l a t i o n or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
very desirable.

S e v e n t y - s e v e n per cent

respo n d i n g rated the p r i n c i p l e
Student
greater degree
principle

Two
had always
student
was

leaders,
in the

(77 %)

at 5 on the

change

of p ra ct ic es

students.

si gni ficant

at the

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

(1)

still more o p p o r tu ni ty

tive decision.

Five

scale.
sense d a

r e l a t i v e to this

Di ff e r e n c e

in the

.05 level of co nfidence.

I ndic at ed that

e x is ted w i t h i n the Un iversity .

leaders and one

to be

of those

fac ult y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

than did the

responses was

de c i s i o n was p e r c e i v e d

of

a p peal channels
Three

student b e l i e v e d

(3)

that

there

for the re vi e w of an a d m i n i s t r a ­

(5) student

leaders

and three

(3)

TABLE 30 c— Clearly defined channels and pro ce d u r e s exist for the appeal and
review of the substan ce of a r e g u l a t i o n or ad mi ni s t r a t i v e decision.

Scale

a.

Undesirable

a,

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

3
N

%

Highly
Desi r a b l e
Great
Change

4

%

N

N

5

%

N

%

TOT AL

Students

a.
b.

1
17

1.4
27.9

1
18

1.4
29.5

5
15

6.8
24.6

9
10

12.2
16.4

58
1

78.4
1.6

74
61

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
16

1.4
22.2

2
15

2.7
20.8

3
19

4.1
26.4

10
14

13.5
19.4

58
8

78.4
11.1

74
72

Fac ult y

a.
b.

0
6

0.0
11.5

3
13

3.9
25

4
11.

5.3
21.2

8
13

10.5
25

61
9

.80.3
17.3

76
52

Admini­
strators

a.
b.

2
7

2.8
10.6

1
10

1.4
15.2

6
27

8.6
40.9

12
12

16.9
18.2

50
10

70.4
15.2

71
66

Tota l

a.
b.
a.
b.

4
46
4.6
2.8

Me a n

Scale b.

7
56

DP

12 x 2 24.03

18
72
Std. Dev.

a.
b.

39
49
.8
1.3

Sig ni fic an t at

227
28

.05 level

295
251

st ud ent s

felt that

the

slow.

be

to app eal und e r any c ir cum stan ces .

The

r e spons es

regulation
s ibil it y
both,

(2)

leaders

to the pr in c i p l e

s pe ci fies

felt

s t a t i n g that

lies w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s ,

shown in Table

31.

it w o u l d

every

No s i g n i f i c a n t

gr ou p or

S e v e n t y - f o u r p e r cent

of those r e s p o n d i n g i d e n t i f i e d the p r i n c i p l e
des ir abl e.

that

to w h o m it app li es and w h e t h e r r e s p o n ­

for compli an ce

are

student

still u n c l e a r and

ex t r e m e l y
futile

Two

cha nnels were

( 7 W

as h i gh ly

di f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d a m o n g the

four g r o u p s .
No s i g n i f i c a n t
the degr ee
leaders

and three

and two

was not
insure

e x i s t e d in r e s p o n s e s to

in change of p ra ct ices .

(2)

facu lt y

responsibility

felt that

to be

a n a l y z e d in Table

to be h i g h l y de sir able.
grou ps was

carried

( 9 2 %)

of the s tu dent s,

st ude nt

leaders,

32.

to appear

The p r i n c i p l e was

scale.

e i g h t y - t w o pe r cent

student

c o n s t i t u t e d ju d i c i a l

for the

found
four

N i n e t y - t w o p e r cent

e i g h t y - f o u r p e r cent

(68%)

any

the right

The m e a n r a t i n g

an d s i x t y -ei gh t p e r cent

(2) stu­

out.

s t at in g that

of a duly

4.7 on the 5 point

Two

were not e s t a b l i s h e d to

to the p r i n c i p l e

one or mo re m e m b e r s

body are

st ud ent

of te n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

a c c u s e d of v i o l a t i n g a r e g u l a t i o n has
befo re

(5)

as to w h o m they apply.

a s s i g n e d or p r o c e d u r e s

Responses

Five

(3) stud en ts b e l i e v e d man y r e g u l a t i o n s

vague an d a mbig uo us
dents

difference

(8 2 %)

(84/S) of the
of the

faculty

of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

TABLE

31.— Ever y regu l a t i o n specif ies to w h o m it applies and w h e t h e r r es po n s i b i l i t y
for compliance lies w i t h indi vi dual s, groups or both.

Scale

a.

Un des irable

a.

b.

No change

b.

2

1
N

.

%

N

4

3

%

Highly
Desirable
Great
Change

5

N

%

N

%

11

N

%

TO T A L

a
b.

1
21

1.4
35.6

1
17

1.4
28.8

8
17

28.8

7
3

9.6
5.1

56
1

76.7
1.7

73
59

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
15

1.4
20 .5

1
18

1.4
24 .7

4
26

5.4
35.6

9
12

12 .2
16 .4

59
2

79.7
2.7

74
73

Faculty

a
b

1
11

1.3
22.4

2
10

2.6
20 ,4

6
16

7.9
32.7

12
5

15.8
10 .2

55
7

72.4
14.3

76
49

0
9

0.0
15.3

2
15

2.8
25.4

6
21

8.5
35.6

13
8

18.3
13.6

50
6

70.4
10.2

71
59

Students

Adminis­
trators
Total
Mean

.
.
a.

b.

.
.

a
b.
a
b.

3
56
4.6
2.5

6
60

24
80
S t d . Dev.

a.
b.

41
26
.8
1.2

22
16

294
240

TABLE

32-— Any student acc us ed of viol a t i n g a r egu la ti on Las the right to appe ar before
one or more me mbers of a duly co nsti tu te d j ud ic ial body.

Scale

a.

Undesirable

a.

b.

No Change

b.

±-%
N

2

%

N

4

3

%

N

%

N

Highly
Desirable
Great
Change

5
N

%

%

TO T A L

Students

a.
b.

0
12

0.0
9.7

0
8

0.0
13.1

1
24

1.4
39.3

5
14

6.8
23

68
3

92
4.9

74
61

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
9

0.0
12.5

1
6

1.4
8.3

4
23

5.4
319

7
18

9.5
25

62
16

83.8
22.2

74
72

Faculty

a.
b.

1
6

1.3
10.7

0
9

0.0
16.1

2
13

2.6
23.2

11
21

14.5
37.5

62
7

81.6
12.5

76
56

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

3
5

4.2
7.7

2
13

2.8
20

5
16

6.9
24.6

13
13

18.1
20

49
18

68.1
27.7

72
65

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

Mean

4
32
4 .7
3 .2

Scale

b.

3
36

DF

12
76
S t d . Dev.

1 o x 2 25 .86
12

241
44

36
66
a.
b.

.7
1.2

Significa nt

at

.05 l e v e l .

296
254

125

faculty and sixty -e ig ht p e r cent
trators

(68$)

of the a d m i n i s ­

r a t e d the p ri nc ip le as highl y de sirabl e.

significant

d i f f e r e n c e was

Student

leaders,

fo u n d amo ng the groups.

facul ty

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p e r ­

c e i v e d a g r e a t e r change in p r a c t i c e s than
stu den ts
was

who respon ded.

s i g n i f i c a n t at the

(4) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

two

No

did those

The d i f f e r e n c e a m o n g the groups
.05 lev el of c onf idence.
(2) stu dents

and one

Four

(1) student

lea der c o m m e n t e d that this p r i n c i p l e was p r a c t i c e d
b e for e

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.

lead ers

and one

represents

(1) student

one of the most

s triki ng gains

(2) stu dent

was

still b e i n g a f f o r d e d his rights.
felt

w o u l d plac e
stu de nt s

in the Report.

leaders q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r the student

that

such an elabora te

Two

(2) a d m i n i s ­

s y s t e m of judi ci ar ie s

an excess b u r d e n up on the time

of those

s e rvi ng on such judiciaries.

Item n u m b e r
s tate me nt

(2) student

felt that this princip le

Tw o

tr at ors

Two

did not

31 is a n a l y z e d in Table
appear in the Report

but was a g u i d e l i n e

used in the

33.

This

as a principl e

d ev el opme nt

of a room

search p o l i c y w h i c h came into being just p r i o r to the
Report.

The p r in ci pl e

o c c u p i e d by
students

states

that the p r e m i s e s

stu dents an d the p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n s

are not

of

se a r c h e d unless a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i z a ­

tion has b e e n obtained.

This prin c i p l e wa s

found to be

TABLE

33.— Premises occupied by students and the p e rsona l p o s s e ssi on s of students
are not sear ched unless a p p r o pr iate a u t h o r i z a t i o n has be en obtained.

Scale

a.

Un des ir abl e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2
%

3
N

%

N

4
%

N

High ly
Desirable
Great
Change

5
%

N

%

T O TAL

Students

a.
b.

2
21

2.7 '
34 .4

0
13

0.0
21.3

3
14

4.1
23

9
13

12 .2
21.3

60
0

81.1
0.0

74
61

Student
Leaders

a
b

.
.

1
20

1.4
27.8

0
14

0.0
19 .4

5
14

6.8
19.4

3
12

4.1
16.7

65
12

87.8
16.7

74
72

Faculty

a.
b .

3
12

4.1
27.3

1
13

1.4
29.5

2
10

2.7
22.7

7
6

9.5
13.6

61
3

82 .4
6.8

74
44

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

2
11

2.8
22

2
9

2.8
18

8
11

11.1
22

9
10

12.5
20

51
9

70.8
18

72
50

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

8
64
4 .6
2. 6

Mean

3
49

18
49

28
41
Std. Dev.
a.
b.

237
24
.9
1.3

294
227

127

highly des irab le by ei gh ty -one pe r cent
students,
leaders,

e i g h t y -e ig ht pe r cent
eigh ty -t wo pe r cent

sevent y- one per cent

(88£)

(8l/6) of the

of the

( 8 2 % ) o f the fac ulty and

( 7 1 % ) of the adm in is t r a t o r s .

The mean resonse was ^.6 on the

5 po i n t

scale.

si gnif ic an t dif fe rence was shown a m o n g the
No

re spo nse was

to change in pr ac ti ce s.

2.6

leaders,

two

m em b e r felt that

four groups.

for the four groups.

The m e a n
Three

(2) stu dent s and one

(1)

(3)

leaders,

the only fo r m of a u t h o r i z a t i o n

two

(2) students an d one

u n a u t h o r i z e d sea rch es were

to be made.

(2) student

those

studen ts

off-campus.

(3)

facu lty

continuing

felt that

only

living in the r e si denc e halls were p r o ­

tected by this right
apply to those

leaders

s h o ul d

Thr ee

(1)

m e m b e r felt that
Tw o

stu­

facu lty

be a sear ch w a rr an t o btai ne d by the police.
student

No

significant dif fe ren ce e x i s t e d amo n g the

groups rel a ti ve

dent

student

and such a pr in c i p l e

stu de nts

s h o u l d also

living in s u p e r v i s e d h o u s i n g

F r e e d o m of E x p r e s s i o n
The analys is

for i t e m n u mb er

Th i s p ri nc iple

states that faculty,

and student s w h o are not
.powers

32 appears

staff m e mbe rs

in Table

administrators

do not

exercise

of veto or cen so rship over news or e d i t o r i a l

content

in the

student newspap er.

F i f t y - s e v e n per cent

{ 5 7 % ) of the st ude nts an d fifty-n ihe pe r cent (59%) of
the student

leaders

d esi rable, whe r e a s ,

found the pri n c i p l e to be hig hly
t hi rt y- nine p e r cent

faculty and forty-one pe r
tors

found the p ri nc ip le

was a s ig ni fica nt

cent

(41%)

(39%)

of the

of the a d m i n i s t r a ­

to be h i g h l y desirable.

There

di ffe re nc e among the g r oup s at the

.05 leve l of confidence.
Of those r e s p o n d i n g to Scale b,
cent

(44%)

of the

of the students,

student

leaders,

thi rt y - t w o pe r cent

t w e n t y - s e v e n per cent

the faculty and fou rteen per cent
trators

was s i g n i fica nt
Fo ur
that
fore,
dent

(14%)

saw no change in practi ce s

tion of the Report.

The

at the

(4) student

fo rt y- f o u r p e r

implementa­

in the r e s p o n s e s

leaders and four

(4)

(1) student,

two

stud ent s

still exi sted,

the p r i n c i p l e was not b e ing followed.
one

of

.05 level of confidence.

cen so rs hi p of the State News

leaders,

(27%)

of the a d m i n i s ­

since the

differe nce

(32%)

Two

felt

there­
(2) st u­

(2) fac ulty, a n d one

(1)

T A B L E 34.— Faculty, ad mini s t r a t o r s and students wh o are not sta ff members
do not exercise any pow ers of veto or cens or sh ip over news or edi to rial
content in the student newspaper.

Scale

a.

Undesirable

a.

b.

No Change

b.

2

1
N

%

N

4

3

%

Highly
Desirable
Great
Change

%

N

N

5

%

N

%

T O TAL

a.
b.

10
26

13.7
44.1

4
12

5.5
20.3

7
13

9.6
22

10
5

13.7
8.5

42
3

57.5
5.1

73
59

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

5
23

6.8
31.9

3
15

4.1
20.8

8
17

11
23.6

14
13

19.2
18.1

43
4

58.9
5.6

73
72

Faculty

a.
b.

17
14

22.7
27.5

6
12

8.0
23.5

12
8

16.0
15.7

11
9

14.7
17.6

29
8

38.7
15.7

75
51

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

12
8

18.2
13.6

5
11

7.6
18.6

16
17

24.2
28.8

6
11

9.1
18.6

27
12

40.9
20.3

66
59

To ta l

a.
b.
a.
b.

44
71
3.8
2.6

Mean

18
50

43
55
Std. Dev.

a.
b.

41
38
1.5
1.4

l4l
27

Scale a.

DF

1 T x 2 21.26
12

S i g n i fi ca nt at

.05 level

Scale b.

DF

12 x

Sig ni fic an t at

.05 level

23.96

287
241

129

Students

a d m i n i s t r a t o r c o m m e n t e d that
exist.

Pour

(4) student

(7) faculty and eight

some form of c e n s o r s h i p should

leaders,

two

(2) students,

(8) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

some check was n e e d e d to insure

c o m m e n t e d that

that the edit or s were

r es po nsible to a s t er ner code of j o u r n a l i s t i c
h i ghe r level of expertis e.
(1)

Tw o

ethics

and one

independent

(1) student

of the Uni ve rsity .

le ad er felt

would create a mor e r e s p o n s i b l e
Table
p ri nc iple

35 shows

states

express o pin io ns

(2) students

that v o l u n t a r y

subscription

newspaper.

and c o m m u n i c a t e

s i x t y - t h r e e per cent

se v e nty-th re e pe r cent

(73%)

ideas by wri ting ,

(44%) of the

of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
responses

a m o n g the

This

publish­

In r e s p o n d i n g to this
(63$) of the

of the student

sidered it to be h i g h l y de si r a b l e ,
per cent

33.

s tu de nt s have m a x i m u m f r e e d o m to

ing and d i s t r i b u t i n g m a te ri al s.
prin ci pl e

should

Two

the r e s p o n s e to it e m n u m b e r

that

and

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and one

facu lt y m e m b e r I n d i c a t e d that the State News

be totally

seven

w h er ea s,

students,
leaders

and

con­

forty-four

f a culty and fi ft y - o n e per cent

(51%)

tho ught

in

it so.

four group s was

The d i f f e r e n c e
s i g n i fi ca nt

at the

.05

level of confid ence .
No si g n i f i c a n t
of the groups to the
Two

d i f f e r e n c e was
change

in practices.

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

stated that
University.

this p r i n c i p l e
T h re e

fou nd in the re spo nses

a n d one

has

(3) f a cult y

(1) f a cu lt y p e r s o n

long b e e n m a i n t a i n e d
and one

in the

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r

TABLE 35.— Stud ent s have m a x i m u m free do m to express opinions and com mu ni ca te
ideas by writing, p u b l i s h i n g and d i s t r i b u t i n g materials.

Scale

a.

U nd esirab le

a.

b.

No Change

b.

2

1
N

%

N

4

3

%

Highl y
De si r a b l e
Great
Change

N

%

N

5

%

N

%

TOTAL

Students

a.
b.

3
12

4.1
19

4
14

5.4
22.2

8
19

10. 8
30.2

12
8

16.2
12.7

47
10

63.5
15.9

74
63

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
17

0.0
23.3

3
12

4.1
1 6 .4

7
21

9.5
28.8

10
14

13.5
19.2

54
9

73
12.3

74
73

Fa cu lt y

a.
b.

5
13

6.5
23.6

6
11

7.8
20

18
18

23.4
32.7

14
7

18.2
12.7

34
6

44.2
10.9

77
55

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

7
8

9.9
12.9

5
11

7
17.7

13
10

18.3
16.1

10
17

14.1
27.4

36
16

50.7
25.8

71
62

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

15
50
4.1
2.9

Mean

Scale a.

18
48

DF

12 x 2 21.80

46
68
Std. Dev.

a.
b.

46
46
1.2
1.3

Signif ic an t at

171
41

.05 level

296
253

agr ee d with the pr in c i p l e as long as the opinio ns
rem a i n e d in
and one

(1)

w i t h i n the
(4)

the r e a l m of truth.

Three

(3) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

faculty m e m b e r felt that the

student

leaders,

two

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

tion of such materia l does not
of others.

Two

(2) faculty,

(1)

infringe upon the rights

two

(2)

student

leaders an d

in that the

should be in good taste.

Resp o n s e s to the pr in c i p l e
does not a uth or iz e

student

Only fi f t e e n per cent
seven per cent

of the

s t ati ng that the U ni versi ty

p u b l i c a t i o n appear in Table

(15%) of the

36.

stu dents r e s p o n d i n g and

(7%) of the student leaders i nd icate d the

p ri nc iple to be u n d e sirabl e,
(24%)

and one

Pour

p r o v i d i n g the d i s t r i b u ­

(1) student q u a l i f i e d their r e sp on se

m a ter ia ls

f r e e d o m should be

legal limit wi th the usual rules of libel.

faculty p e r s o n agr ee d in princi ple,

one

and ideas

whe reas,

t w e n t y - f o u r per cent

faculty and t h i r t y - t h r e e per cent

(33 %)

of the

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d e s i g n a t e d the p ri nc ip le as unde sir able.
The mean res ponse of the
scale.
was

The d i f f e r e n c e

significant at

four groups was

in the re sp o n s e s

3*4 on the 5 point
for the four groups

.01 level of confidence.

In the degree w h i c h pra ct ic es were be l i e v e d to have
changed,

administrators

students p e r c e i v e d the
the r es ponses of the
level of confidence.

p er c e i v e d the greatest
least

change.

four groups was

change while

The di ff er e n c e
signif ica nt

in

at the

.01

TA B L E 36.— The U niv er si ty does not a uth or iz e

Scale

student publications.

a.

Un de si r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

N

%

N

%

%

N

%

N

N

Highly
D es ir able
Great
Change

%

TOTAL

a.
b.

11
22

15.3
38.6

6
8

8.3
14

17
21

23.6
36.8

10
5

13.9
8.8

28
1

38.9
1.8

72
57

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

5
24

6.9
33.8

6
6

8.-3
8.5

13
27

18.1
38

17
14

23.6
19.7

31
0

43.1
0.0

72
71

Faculty

a.
b.

16
14

23.9
33.3

7
8

10.4
19

15
14

22.4
33.3

3
3

4.5
7.1

26
3

38.8
7.1

67
42

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

22
16

33.3
28.6

9
5

13.6
8.9

10
15

15.2
26.8

3
7

4.5
12.5

22
13

33.3
23.2

66
56

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

54
76
3.4
2.5

Mean

28
27

55
77
Std. Dev.

a.
b.

33
29
1.5
1.3

107
17

Scale a.

DF

12 x^ 31.93

Significant

at

.01 level

Scale b.

DF

12 x 2 35.93

Signif ic ant at

.01 level

277
226

133

Students

Pour
two

(4) student

leaders,

two

(2) ad m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

and

(2) faculty agreed wi th the p ri ncipl e and stated that

the Uni ve rs it y,

th erefore,

News by tax in g students.
faculty and one

should cease to fund the State
Two

(1) student

(2) a d m i ni st rator s,

two

(2)

sug gested that the U n i v e r s i t y

should aut ho rize an off icia l U n i v e r s i t y p u b l i c a t i o n but
not res t ri ct

student pub licat io ns .

Item 35 states that the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
or other content,
sponso ri ng agency,

finance and d i s t r i b u t i o n lies wit h the
group,

marizes the resp on se s

or or ga nization .

to this princip le.

was shown a m o n g the groups.
be desirable.
5 point

for e d i t o r i a l

Table

Lit tle d i f f e r e n c e

The prin ci pl e was

The me a n for the

37 s u m ­

p e r c e i v e d to

four groups wa s

4.2 on the

scale.

Little v a r i a t i o n was

shown

four groups

in their o p inion to

significant

diff e r e n c e

in the res po ns es
change

among the

of the

in practic es.

No

group re sp o n s e s e x i s t e d

on Scale b.
Four

(4) faculty,

students and three

four

(4)

(3) ad mi ni s t r a t o r s

r e l a t io ns hip of the State News
clarified
two

commen ted that
are re q u i r e d to

leaders and two
stu dent s are the

leaders,

four

c o m m e n t e d that

to the U n i v e r s i t y

in r e l a t i o n to this pr inc iple.

(2) student

avenue

student

Fo u r

the

s h ou ld be

(4) faculty,

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

further

s p o n s o r i n g group since

subsidi ze the State N e w s , yet

for e x p r e s s i n g app ro va l or disa ppr oval.

(4)

they

they have no

TABLE 37.— R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for edit or ia l or other content, finance and d i s t r i b u t i o n
lies w i t h the spon s o r i n g agency, group or organization.

Scale

a.

U n d e s ir ab le

a.

b.

No Change

b.

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

High ly
Desirabl e
Great
Change

N

%

TO TA L

a.
b.

3
20

4.1
32.3

2
13

2.7
21

11
20

15.1
32.3

15
5

20.5
8.1

42
4

57.5
6.5

73
62

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
18

1.4
25

3
13

4.1
18.1

8
23

10.8
31.9

10
15

13.5
20. 8

52
3

70.3
4.2

74
72

Faculty

a.
b.

5
14

6.9
33.3

5
7

6.9
16.7

8
13

11.1
31

14
3

19.4
7.1

40
5

55.6
11.9

72
42

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

6
11

8.6
19.6

3
12

4.3
21.4

7
23

10
41.1

13
5

18.6
8.9

41
5

58.6
8.9

70
56

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

15
63
4.2
2.5

Mean

13
45

34
79
Std. Dev

a.
b.

52
28
1.1
1.2

175
17

289
232

135

Students

R e s p o n s e s to i t e m 36 were of si gni fic ant
at the

,05 level of conf id en ce

St udents and student
sta ting that

leaders

diff er e n c e

as i ndica te d in Table

in di c a t e d that

the pri nc ip le

the pr iv i l e g e of d i s t r i b u t i o n wh i c h

a ccor de d to any free

student p u b l i c a t i o n

38.

is

is e q ua ll y a c co rd ed

to all, was more de si r a b l e than p e r c e i v e d by facu lty and
ad mini st ra to rs.

Sev ent y- on e per cent

and e i g h t y - o n e per cent
the statement
(59$) of the

(81%)

(71%) of the

of the student

as hig hl y desirable.

students

leaders

F ifty- ni ne

faculty and six ty -th re e per cent

rated

per cent
(6 3 $) of the

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s m ar k e d it accordingly.
No signif icant

d i f f e r e n c e was

r e g a r d i n g t he i r opinions
Two

in change of practices.

(2) ad mi ni st rato rs ,

students and two

shown a m on g the groups

(2) student

two

(2) faculty,

leaders

two

comm e n t e d that

(2)
content

should be a fac to r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p u b l i c a t i o n should
be accorded the priv i l e g e of dis tri bu ti on.
leaders

felt

that

(1)

against

student

37.

felt

Report.
that

39 gives

This pr in c i p l e

students and

Two

states that

publ ica tion.

(2) student

leaders

and

in v i o l a t i o n of this principle.

an analysis

authorizes nor pro hib it s
any student

student

the U n i v e r s i t y d i s c r i m i n a t e d

cert ai n pu bl i c a t i o n s

Table

(2)

this pri nc ipl e was p r a c t i c e d before the

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the
one

Two

the

of the r e sp on se s to item
the Un iv er s i t y nei the r

s o l i c i t a t i o n of a d v e r t i s i n g by

S i x t y - s i x per cent

si x t y - s e v e n per cent

(66$) of the

(6 7 $) of the

student

T A BLE

3 8 ,— The p r iv il eg e of d i s t r i b u t i o n w h i c h is a c co rded to any free student
p u b l i c a t i o n is equally acco rded to all.

Scale

a.

Undes i r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2
%

3
N

%

^
%

N

N

Highly
D es i r a b l e
Great
Change

5
%

%

N

TOT A]

Students

a.
b.

2
11

2.8
19,6

1
13

1.4
23.2

10
20

13.9
35.7

8
8

11.1
14.3

51
4

70.8
7.1

72
56

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

1
15

1.4
20.5

0
12

0.0
16.4

6
17

8.1
23.3

7
15

9.5
20.5

60
14

81.1
19.2

74
73

Fa culty

a.
b.

5
9

6.8
19,1

5
10

6.8
21.3

8
17

10.8
36.2

12
7

16.2
14.9

44
4

59.5
8.5

74
47

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

8
12

11.8
20.7

1
9

1.5
15.5

7
14

10.3
24.1

9
10

13.2
17.2

43
13

63.2
22.4

68
58

Tot al

a.
b.
a.
b.

16
47
4.4
2.9

Me a n

Scale a.

7
44

31
68

std. :
Dev.
DF

12 x 2 21.91

a.
b.

36
40
1.1
1.3

Si gn if ic ant at

198
36

,05 level

288
234

T AB L E 39.— The U ni vers it y n e ith er a ut hori ze s nor p roh ib it s the so l i c i t a t i o n of
a d v e r t i s i n g by any student publication.

Scale

a.

Undesirable

a.

b.

No Change

b.

N

%

N

%

%

N

N

%

Highly
D esir ab le
Great
Change

N

%

TOT A L

Students

a.
b.

2
13

2.7
22

3
16

4.1
27.1

11
20

15.1
33.9

9
8

12.3
13.6

48
2

65.8
3.4

73
59

Student
Lea der s

a.
b.

1
20

1.4
28.6

2
11

2.7
15.7

8
22

11
31.4

13
9

17.8
12.9

49
8

67.1
11.4

73
70

Facu lty

a.
b.

3
12

4.1
29.3

7
9

9.6
22

12
12

16.4
29.3

11
4

15.1
9.8

4G
4

54.8
9.8

73
41

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

11
17

16.2
34.7

2
10

2.9
20.4

10
11

14.7
22.4

10
2

14.7
4.1

35
9

51.5
18.4

68
49

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

17
62
4.2
2.5

Mean

Scale a.

14
46

DF

TO
12 x 2 24.65

41
65
Std. Dev.

a.
b.

43
23
1.2
1.3

Si gnif ic an t at

172
23

.05 level

287
219

139

leaders

i d e n t i f i e d this

F if ty -five

p r i n c i p l e as b e i n g h i g h l y desirable.

( 5 5 % ) of t h e faculty and f if ty-o ne per

p e r cent

( 5 1 % ) of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s rat ed it in the same

cent

category.

The d i f f e r e n c e a m o n g the groups

was si g n i f i c a n t

at the

in th e i r r e s p o n s e s

.05 lev el of confidence.

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was

found in the group

re sp ons es to chang e in pra ct ices .
Two

(2) student

leaders

b e l i e v e d thi s p ri nc ip le

to be

m e n t a t i o n o f the Report.
administrator

felt

that

One

a n d two

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

in pr a c t i c e b ef o r e the
(1) facu lt y an d one

student

publications

imple­

(1)

sho uld be

a l l o w e d to su c c e e d or fai l in t h ei r own way w i thout U n i v e r ­
sity g u i d a n c e or in terfe re nc e.
one

(1) student

One

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t o r

lead er b e l i e v e d the

student p a p e r has

c r ea te d a m o n o p o l y

in t h e

s o l i c i t a t i o n of ad vert is in g.

Item 38 is not a p r i n c i p l e
but is a p r i n c i p l e
sity p o l i c i e s
tions

which

them,

privately.

The a n a l y s i s

in Tab le

to disc us s

and t o e x pr es s opi nio ns
of r e s p o n s e s

of student o r g a n i z a ­
all q u e s t i o n s

of

p u b l i c l y and

to this p r i n c i p l e

40.

The p r i n c i p l e was
all four groups.
4.6 on the

in the Report

is b e l i e v e d to u n d e r l i e U n i v e r ­

are free to e x a m i n e and

appe ars

contained

and p r a c t i c e s in the areas

interest to

and

5 point

p e r c e i v e d to be very d e s i r a b l e

The m e a n r a t i n g for the
scale.

No

found a m o n g the four groups.

by

four groups was

si g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e wa s

TA B L E 40 .— Stu dents and student or ga ni za ti ons are free to examine and to discuss
all qu estions of interest to them, and to express opinions p u b l i c l y and privately.

Scale

a.

Und es irabl e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

N

Highly
Desira bl e
Great
Change
5

3

%

%

N

N

%

N

%

TOTAL

a.
b.

2
9

2.7
14.5

1
15

1.4
24.2

4
18

5.5
29

16
16

21.9
25.8

50
4

68.5
6.5

73
62

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
8

0.0
11

4
11

5.4
15.1

2
26

2.7
35.6

7
18

9.5
24.7

61
10

82.4
13.7

74
73

Faculty

a.
b.

1
9

1.3
16.7

3
13

3.8
24.1

7
12

9
22.2

14
7

17.9
13

53
13

67.9
24.1

78
54

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

1
7

1.4
11.1

2
14

2.8
22.2

7
17

9.7
27

10
14

13.9
22.2

52
11

72.2
17.4

72
63

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

4
33
4.6
3

Me a n

10
53

20
73
Std. Dev.

a,
b.

47
55
.9
1.2

216
38

297
252

140

Students

Three
two

(3) student

leaders,

(2) fac ulty and one

three

(1) student

of this p ri nc iple wi t h the com me nt
should exist,
academic

q u a l i f i e d t h e i r approval
that

certain

limitations

such as the top ic b e i n g a p p r o p r i a t e

for the

co mm u n i t y and the p e r s o n or gro up a s s u m i n g some

responsibility
student

(3) a d m i ni st rato rs ,

for op in ions

leaders and one

or views ex pre sse d.

Two

(3)

(1) stud en t b e l i e v e d that this

p r i n c i p l e was not b e i n g p r a c t i c e d
U ni versit y.

Three

(2) student

in all a s p e c t s

leaders

felt that

of the

this concept

was not p e r m i t t e d in r e s i d e n c e halls.
Table

41 shows the r e s p o n s e s

to the

s t a t e m e n t that

st udents are a l l o w e d to invi te and he a r any p e r s o n of their
own choosing.

This

is not a p r i n c i p l e

but is an u n d e r l y i n g g u i d e l i n e
sp eak er's po li c y at M i c h i g a n
S e ven ty per cent
cent

(8 0 /S) of the

to be h i gh ly

s t at ed in the Report

for the d e v e l o p m e n t

State U n i v e rsi ty .

(70/S) of the s tu de nts

student

d es irabl e,

of the

lea de rs

w h e re as ,

and eighty pe r

c o n s i d e r e d this principle
f i f t y - f i v e p e r cent

of the fac ulty and f i f t y - s i x per cent

( 5 & % ) o f the ad m i n ­

ist rat ors r a t e d it a cc or di ngly.

The d i f f e r e n c e

re sp o n s e s

s i g n i fica nt

of the four groups was

( 5 5 %)

in the

at the

.01

level of con fidence.
A l t h o u g h the
the Report,

st udent

s pe ak er 's
leaders

gr ea te r d e g r e e of ch an g e

po li c y was

in e f f e c t

prior to

as a group t e n d e d to report a

in p r a c t i c e s

in a d h e r i n g to this p r i n c i p l e

w i t h i n the Uni ve rsit y

than the ot h e r thre e groups.

TA B L E 41.— Students are allo we d to invite and to hear any p e r s o n of their
own choosing.

Scale

a.

Un desi r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1
N

2

%

N

4

3

%

%

N

N

Highly
Desirabl e
Great
Change
5

%

N

%

TOTAL

Students

a.
b.

2
12

2.7
19.4

1
13

1.4
21

4
23

5.4
37.1

15
9

20.3
14.5

52
5

70.3
8.1

74
62

Student
Leaders

a.
b.

0
10

0.0
13.5

1
13

1.4
17.6

5
15

6.8
20.3

9
19

12.2
25.7

59
17

79.7
23

74
74

Faculty

a.
b.

7
11

7.9
21.6

7
13

9.0
25.5

9
16

11.5
31.4

12
7

15.4
13.7

43
4

55.1
7.8

78
51

Adminis­
trators

a.
b.

9
12

11.4
22.2

5
9

7.1
16.7

10
16

14.3
29.6

8
4

11.4
7.4

39
13

55.7
24.1

70
54

Total

a.
b.
a.
b.

17
45
4.3
2.9

Mean.

Scale a.
Scale b.

14
48

DF
DF

in x~2
12
29.39
12 x 2 22.32

28
70
Std. Dev.

a.
b•

44
39
1.2
1.3

at
Sig ni fic an t ,
Si gni fic an t ,
at

193
39

.01 level
.05 level

296
241

The d i f f e r e n c e
level
that

in the re sp o n s e s was

of con fidence.

Fo u r

(4) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

this had be en the p r a c t i c e

Three

.05

p o i n t e d out

in the U n i v e r s i t y

and in s i s t e d that

the s t u d e n t s 1 expense.
a dm in i s t r a t o r ,
ins is ted that

p rinc ip le

Three

since

1962.

some

l i m i t at io ns

sh ou l d exist.

(1) student

Issues

leaders

and one

series as evi d e n c e

this prin cip le.
the p r i n c i p l e

Two

(2) student s
Three

(3)

in fav or of this

Item 40 states

only to insure

for the

that

that there

and adeq ua te

procedures

(2) s t ud en ts w a n te d

s p o n s o r i n g agent

or group

rele va nc y

topic

of the

preparation

a principle

a

s c h e d u l i n g of the
for the event.

c o n t a i n e d in the Report

This
but

u s e d in the d e v e l opmen t

s p e a k e r ’s p o li cy at M i c h i g a n
s ta te ment have been a n a l y z e d
and student

req ui red bef or e

on campus are d es ig ne d

is o r d e r l y

ra th er is an u n d e r l y i n g stat eme nt

Stu de nt s

m e n t i o n e d the

i n t e g r i t y of the speaker.

is invi ted to appe ar

is not

student

of the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of

q u a l i f i e d so that the

and the i n t e l l e c t u a l

spe ak er

(1)

(2) facu lty an d two

wou ld assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

to this

(1)

p r o v i d i n g all sides of an issue w o u l d be present ed.

Great

of the

and two

lead er we re

should be at

and one

leaders

(3) stud ent

gu id eli ne

(3) f a cult y

(2) student

Three

facilit ies

such spe akers

two

faculty and one

to be

at the

(3)' fa cu lty r a ise d the q u e s t i o n of u s i n g pu b l i c l y

owned b u i l d i n g s

guest

s i g n i fican t

State.

The res p on se s

in Table

42.

leaders p e r c e i v e d this pr in c i p l e

s l igh tl y more d e s i r a b l e

than did f a cu lty

and

TABLE 42.— P roc edures r e q u i r e d befo re a guest speaker is inv it ed to appe ar
on campus are de s i g n e d only to insure that there is orde rl y sch ed u l i n g
of facilities and ade quate p r e p a r a t i o n for the event.

Scale

a.

Un desi r a b l e

a.

b.

No Change

b.

1

Students

Student
Leaders

Faculty

Adminis­
trators

Total
Mea n

2

N

%

N

a.

1

1.4

b.

16

a.

3

Highly
D e sir ab le
Great
Change

4

5

%

N

%

3

4.1

2

2.7

18

24.3

50

67.6

74

25.8

16

25.8

23

37.1

4

6.5

3

4.8

62

3

4.1

1

.1.4

3

4.1

13

17.8

53

72.6

73

b.

12

16.9

11

15.5

27

38

12

16.9

9

12.7

71

a.

7

9.2

9

11.8

8

10.5

11

14.5

41

53.9

76

b.

14

27.5

13

25.5

14

27.5

5

9.8

5

9.8

51

a.

5

7.2

5

7.2

9

11

15.9

39

56.5

69

b.

9

16.7

7

13

12

22.2

54

a.
b.
a.
b.

16
51
4.3
2.7

Scale a.

13

18
47

DF

12 x 2 24.31

19

13
35.2

22
83
Std. Dev.

%

N

7

a.
b.

53
28
1.2
1.3

Sig nif icant at

N

%

183
29

.05 level

tota

292
238

:

administrator s.

Si x t y - e i g h t per cent

and se venty- th re e per cent

(68%)

(73%) of the student

r at e d the pri nci ple as hig hly desirable.
cent

of the

(56%) of

rated the statement as highly desirable.

The d if fe re nce in the r espon se s
n i f i c a n t at the

leaders

F i f t y - f o u r per

(54%) of the faculty and f if ty -s ix per cent

the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

amo n g the groups was

three

pe rc e i v e d sli gh tl y more

groups.

sig­

.05 level of confidence.

On the scale j u d g i n g the change in p r a c t i c e s
ist ra to rs

stu dent s

No

sig nifi ca nt

admin­

change th a n the other

differ en ce

e x is ted among the

group responses.
Two
one
been

(2) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

(1) faculty p e r s o n

leaders

felt

for several years.

Fou r

(4)

student

that the p r o c e d u r e s

served to harass.

adm inis tr at or s,

one

c o m m e n t e d that the re
b e f o r e an outside

Two

Four

and two

too i n v o l v e d

(4) faculty,

(1) student and one
should exist

leaders

for the p r e p a r a t i o n

to b r i n g a speaker to campus were excessi ve ,
and simply

lea d er and

saw this p r i n c i p l e as an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l

l o oph ol e for suppression.
students

(1) student

i nd ic at ed that this p r i n c i p l e had

fol lowed by the U n i v e r s i t y

(2) student

(2)

one

tw o

(1) student

(2)
lead er

some s e l e c t i o n p r oc es s

spe aker is brou ght

on campus.

Summ ary
Ch apter V has p r e s e n t e d an analysis
of the

of the r e s p o n s e s

four groups to a forty it em q u e s t i o n n a i r e

of st ate ments or p r i n c i p l e s ,

consisting

wh i c h for the most part were

extr ac te d
Students

from the repo rt

on the

"Academic F r e e d o m for

at Mic h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y . "

were used to s umma ri ze
each of two scales:
wh i c h r e s p o n d e n t s
and Scale

res pon ses

C o n t i n g e n c y tables

of the

four grou ps

to

Scale a r e p r e s e n t e d the d e gr ee

to

c o n s i d e r e d the p r i n c i p l e to be desirab le;

b r e p r e s e n t e d the degree to w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s

believed p r a c t i c e s

in the U n i v e r s i t y h a d change d r e la ti ve

to the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the principle.

P e r c e nt ag es were

used to a n al yz e

respo nse s

five rat in gs

the

i.e.,

two sacles,

on Scale
Chi

a and fro m no

square,

to each of the

r a n g i n g from u n d e s i r a b l e to de sir able
change to great

a non-parametric

di f f e r e n c e s a m o n g the

statistic

four groups.

have been note d when they were
the

on

change

on Scale b.

was u s e d to analyze

Differences

in responses

found to be s i g n i f i c a n t

at

.05 level of confidence.
Comments were

s o l i c i t e d to each s ta te ment and in

those instanc es

where

tially the

comment,

same

two or more

r e s p o nd ents

made

they have bee n edi ted and

essen­
summarized

in the analysis.
A s u mm ary
are

found

the

implications

of the c o n c l usio ns

in the next

d ra w n from this

analysis

c h a p t e r alo n g w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of

for f u r t h e r

study.

C H A P T E R VI

SUMMARY, F I N D I N G S AND C O N C L U S I O N S

The P r o b l e m
The p u rp ose of this

study was to asse ss the d e s i r ­

ability of se le cted prin c i p l e s

co nt a i n e d in the report

the "Academic F r e e d o m fo r Students
University."

on

at M i c h i g a n State

In the d e v e l o p m e n t and subseq ue nt

adoption

of the Repor t it was as s u m e d that the p r i n c i p l e s or g u i d e ­
lines u p o n w h i c h the Repo rt was
accept ab le

to the U n i v e r s i t y

foun de d we r e g en eral ly

community.

poses of the study was to d e t e r m i n e
correct.

One of the p u r ­

if this a s s u m p t i o n was

If in fact the p r i n c i p l e s put forth in the Repo rt

were c o n s i d e r e d to be d e s i r a b l e and a c c e p t e d in spirit,
changes in pr ac t i c e s

s h o ul d have t a k en place

in the U n i v e r ­

sity w h i c h wou l d be in a c c o r d wi t h these principles.
Opinions

of students,

stu den t

leaders,

istrators were co m p a r e d wi t h res pec t
of these p r i n c i p l e s

and

fac ult y and a d m i n ­

to

(a) the d e s i r a b i l i t y

(b) the degr ee of change w h i c h

would move p r a c t i c e s in the U n i v e r s i t y towa r d these
principles.

Fo u r sample

groups of students,

faculty and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s we re r a n d o m l y

student

leaders,

s el ecte d to d e t e r ­

mine w h e t h e r the re was any r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m e m b e r s h i p

1^7

148
In a p a r t i c u l a r seg ment

of the U n i v e r s i t y

d e s i r a b i l i t y of s e l e c t e d pr in ci p l e s

c o m m u n i t y and the

fou nd in the Report.

D e s i g n of the Stud y
A forty i t e m q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t i n g of the funda­
mental g ui deline s u n d e r l y i n g the R e p o r t was m a i l e d to each
in div id ual

in the

sample groups in the fall of 1968.

E i g h t y - t h r e e per cent

of the sample grou ps

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e wi t h s e v e n ty- si x p e r cent
r e t u r n e d b e i n g s t a t i s t i c a l l y useable.
a n s w e r e d all qu estion s,

particularly

to do wi th chang e in p racti ce s.
indica te d that they d i d not

returned

( 7 6 % ) of those

Not all respondents
in Scale b whi ch had

A n u m b e r of the re spo nden ts

feel q u a l i f i e d to expr ess an

op i n i o n in an are a w i t h w h i c h they w e r e u n f a m il ia r.
was e s p e c i a l l y the case with

faculty and ad mi ni stra to rs .

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i v i d e d
student
records;

freedoms:

(1)

into fou r areas of

a ca de mic and cla ss room;

(3) re g u l a t i o n s ,

rul es and

(4) f r e e d o m of expressi on.

This

student

(2) student

conduct;

For ea c h p r i n c i p l e

individu al was r e q u e s t e d to make two re spo ns es :

and

or item the
(a) the

degree to w h i c h he felt the p r i n c i p l e to be de si rab le;
and

(b) the deg re e w h i c h he

to the p r i n c i p l e
R es po nses were

felt p r a c t i c e s ha d moved

closer

since the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.

i n d i c a t e d on two scale s w i t h a r b i t r a r y

values f r o m one to five.

Chi square,

a non-parametric

statistic was us e d to a n al yz e the data.
confiden ce was us ed to de te r m i n e

The

.05 level of

statistical

significance

In d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g the groups.
aft er each pr inc iple.
essentially

Co m m e n t s were s o l i c i t e d

If two or m o r e r e s p o n d e n t s made

the same com ment,

Desirability

it w a s e d it ed and reported.

of the Pr in ci p l e s

Academic and Classroom
Thos e p r i n c i p l e s
rig hts

p e r t a i n i n g to ac a d e m i c and c l a s s r o o m

of stud en ts have b e e n well r e c e i v e d by all

groups.

On only two p r i n c i p l e s w e r e there

differences

a m o n g the four groups.

tors p e r c e i v e d the g u i d e l i n e
for h e a r i n g c o m p l a i n t s
and the rig ht

fered

in the

be p r o v i d e d
c om mi tt ees

signi fic ant

F a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a ­
p r o c e d u r e s be e s t a b l i s h e d

to r e c o n c i l e a righ t

of a student

than did s t udent s

that

to be sl i g h t l y

an d student

four

leaders.

of the

fac ulty

less d e si ra bl e

The s e

groups d i f ­

same p a t t e r n on the p r i n c i p l e that m e m b e r s h i p
for st u d e n t s

on r e g u l a r d e p a r t m e n t a l an d col lege

in w h i c h p r o b l e m s

are d i s c u s s e d and policies

formulated.

Stu de nt R e co rd s
S i g n i fi ca nt
principles
stu den t

d i f f e r e n c e was e s t a b l i s h e d on but

p e r t a i n i n g to st ude nt

records .

leaders p e r c e i v e d the p r i n c i p l e

demonstrable

need

for all r e c o r d s

S t ud ents and

s t a t i n g there is a

r e t a i n e d whi c h is r e a s o n ­

ably r e l a t e d to the basic n e c e s s i t i e s
be less d e s i r a b l e

two

of the U n i v e r s i t y to

tha n did f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

the other h a n d f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

i n d i c a t e d the

On

150

pr in c i p l e

s t a t i n g that no one out sid e

administrative

the fa c u l t y or

staff shou ld have acc ess to the r e c o r d of a

student's o f f e n s e s agai ns t U n i v e r s i t y
express p e r m i s s i o n of the student

r e g u l a t i o n s w i th ou t

in w r i t i n g to be less

d es ir able t h a n did students and stud en t

leaders.

Re gu l a t i o n s , Rules and
Student ConductT
Of the
rules

fourteen principles

and s t ud en t

conduct

groups were a p pa re nt

s i g n i fi cant

d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g the

in the r e s p o n s e s

F a c u l t y p e r c e i v e d the s ta te me nt
to the m a x i m u m extent
re g u l a t i o n s

r e l a t i n g to r e g u l a t i o n s ,

f e as ible

g o v e r n i n g student

s t uden ts p a r t i c i p a t e

in f o r m u l a t i n g a n d r e v i s i n g
condu ct

than the o t h e r three groups.
b e l i e v e d the p r i n c i p l e

that

for two p r i n c iples .

St u d e n t s

to be less d e s i r a b l e
and stud ent

s t a t i n g that the re

leaders

is a d e m o n s t r a b l e

need for ea c h r e g u l a t i o n w h i c h

is r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e d to the

basic p u r p o s e s

and n e c e s s i t i e s

of the U n i v e r s i t y to be

less d e s i r a b l e

than did the fa cu lty an d ad mi ni st r a t o r s .

F r e e d o m of E x p r e s s i o n
A l t h o u g h the s e c t i o n on f r e e d o m of e x p r e s s i o n c o n ­
t a ine d only nine pr i n c i p l e s ,
the groups

significant

differences

in the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the p r i n c i p l e

were

among
shown

in se v e n of the items.
S t ude nt s and student
that

fa culty,

m e mbe rs do not

l e ad er s c o n s i d e r e d the

administrators

sta te men t

and s t ud en ts who are not staff

e xe r c i s e any p o w e r s of veto or c e n s o r s h i p

151

over news or e d i t o r i a l content
be mo re d e s i r a b l e

in the student

ne ws p a p e r to

tha n did f a c ul ty and adm ini stra to rs .

This p r i n c i p l e t e n d e d to be one of the

least

a c c e p t e d in

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h a m e a n score of 3.8 for the com bine d
groups.
prin c i p l e

The same d i f f e r e n c e was
s t a t i n g that

express o p in io ns

found in r es p o n s e s

to the

students have m a x i m u m f r e e d o m to

and communicate

ideas by writin g,

pub­

li s h i n g a n d d i s t r i b u t i n g mat er ia ls.
The

least a c c e p t e d p r i n c i p l e

the U n i v e r s i t y doe s not a u t h o r i z e

in the study states that
student pu blic at io ns .

The m e a n score for the four groups was
tra ry

5 point

scale.

3.^ on the a r b i ­

A l t h o u g h stu d en ts and student

did not p e r c e i v e this to be ve ry de sirabl e,
administrators

leaders

fac ul ty and

c o n s i d e r e d it to be e v e n less desirable.

Students an d stu de nt

leaders

c o n s i d e r e d the s ta te me nt

that

the p r i v i l e g e of d i s t r i b u t i o n w h i c h is a c c o r d e d to any free
student p u b l i c a t i o n is e q ua ll y a c c o r d e d to all to be more
desirable
was

true

than did

fac ult y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

for the p r i n c i p l e

s t a t i n g that

neither authorizes

nor p r o h i b i t s

a d v e r t i s i n g by any

student p u b l i ca tion.

The p r i n c i p l e

s t a t i n g that

The

same

the U n i v e r s i t y

the s o l i c i t a t i o n of

stu de nts are al l o w e d to

inv ite an d to h e a r any p e r s o n of t h e i r own c h o o s i n g was
not

dr a w n fr o m the

report

on the

"Academ ic F r e e d o m for

Stu den ts at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y "

but is co ns i d e r e d

to be an u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e to the s pe ak er's policy

152

e s t a b l i s h e d at M i c hi ga n State in 1962.
and student leaders

Aga in

c o n s i d e r e d this prin ci pl e

stu dents
to be

sig ­

n i f i c a n t l y more des ir able than did faculty an d a d m i n i s ­
trators .

Ano the r p r i n c i p l e not

cont ain ed in the Repo rt

but one re l a t i n g to the

s p e a k e r ’s policy

cedures re q u i r e d bef or e

a guest

states that p r o ­

s p ea ke r is i n v i t e d to

app ear on campus are d e s i g n e d only to insure that
is ord erl y scheduling o f facilit ie s
tion for the event.

there

and a de qu ate p r e p a r a ­

Ag a i n stu dent s and student

leaders

p e r c e i v e d this statement to be s i g n i fi ca ntly mo re

desirable

than did faculty and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

Change

Ac a d e m i c

in Practic es

and Classroom

In the section on p r i n c i p l e s
and c l a s s r o o m rights,

re la ting to a c ad emic

f a cu lty an d admin is t r a t o r s

indicated

a g r e a t e r degree in the

changes w h i c h have m o v e d p r a c t i c e s

closer to the princip le

s t at in g that the student

accurate

and clearly s t at ed i n f o r m a t i o n wh i c h

to det ermi ne his own ac a d e m i c
University

enables him

rel a t i o n s h i p w i t h the

and any s p ec ia l co nd i t i o n s which app ly than

did student s
faculty

and student

leaders.

In the same

cat ego ry

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p e r c e i v e d a g r e a t e r change,

wh i c h was s ig ni f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the stu de nt s
student
ciple

r ec ei ves

leaders, in m o v i n g p r a c t i c e s

s t a t i n g that d e p a r t m e n t s

and

closer to the p r i n ­

and colleges have

clear ly

d e fi ned channels
student

for the rece ipt

complaints

and con si d e r a t i o n of

c o n c e r n i n g the qua lit y

of instruction.

Student Records
In the cat eg or y of student records,

student

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s b e l i e v e d a g r e a t e r change
had o c c u r r e d rel a t i v e
being b a s e d on res pe ct

to the

for the p r i v a c y of the
of st ude nts

p o l i t i c a l bel ie fs w i th ou t his k no wl ed ge ;
student to inspect

own a ca d e m i c record.

in p r ac tice s

fo ll o w i n g pr inc ipl es:

student; not r e t a i n i n g rec ords

of the

leaders

individual

r elig io us

or

and the right

the off ic ia l t ra ns crip t

Administrators

records

of his

sense d a g r e a t e r

degree in change in p r a c t i c e s than di d the o th e r three
groups

tow ard the p r i n c i p l e s

of p e r s o n s h a n d l i n g

c o n f i dent ia l i n f o r m a t i o n and the access

to the r e co rd of a st ud e n t ' s
r e g u l a t i o n s with out

re l a t i n g to the in st ru ction

offenses

against

the exp r es s p e r m i s s i o n

Un iversi ty

of the student

in wri ting.

R e g u l atio ns , Rules
Student Conduct
Und er those
and stu dent
a

an d

fre edo ms

conduct

r e la ti ng to re gu la ti ons,

fa culty and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p e r c e i v e d to

g r e a t e r degree t h a n stu dents and student

prac t i c e s ha d m o v e d clo ser to the
only where

rules

the I n s t i t u t i o n ' s

leaders

f ol lowin g pr in cip les:

i ntere st s as an academic

c omm unity are d i s ti nc t and clearly In v o l v e d is the
auth or it y of the i n s t i t u t i o n

that

special

ass e r t e d in ad d i t i o n to

154

p e n a l t i e s p r e s c r i b e d by
governing
manner;

student

civil a ut ho ri ties;

conduct are made public

all re g u l a t i o n s
in an a pprop ri at e

an d there is a d e m o n s t r a b l e n e e d for ea ch r e g u l a ­

tion w h i c h is r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e d to the b a si c p ur po se s
necessities

of the Uni ver si ty .

In the same ar e a of fre ed oms ,
less

change

to the

channels

and p r o c e d u r e s

lation;

stu dents p e r c e i v e d

in p r a c t i c e s than did the other three group s

relative

of the

following p r i n c i p l e s :
exist

c l ea rly d e f i n e d

for the app e al

and r e vi ew

f i nd in g of guilt

in an al l e g e d v i o l a t i o n

of a r e g u ­

cle a rl y d e f i n e d

channe ls and p r o c e d u r e s

exist

the a p p ea l and r e v i e w of the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ,
circumstances,
violatio n;
exist

and

of the p e n a l t y

and clea rl y

for

under the

i m po sed for a specific

de f i n e d cha nnel s and p r o c e d u r e s

for the app ea l an d r e v i e w of the

r e g u l a t i o n or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

su bs t a n c e

of a

decision.

F r e e d o m of E x p r e s s i o n
U n d e r those p r i n c i p l e s
expression

si g n i f i c a n t

the nine pr in ci pl es.
gr e a t e r change

possessions
pri at e

Faculty

existed

f r ee do m of
in three

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

toward meeting

o c c u p i e d by stu dents

of s t u d e n t s

are not

of

indicated

the p r i n c i p l e
and p e r s o n a l

s e a r c h e d unless

a u t h o r i z a t i o n has b e e n obtained.

saw g r e a t e r change
tices

di f f e r e n c e s

in p r a c t i c e s

stating that p r e m i s e s

p e r t a i n i n g to

appro­

Administrators

in the U n i v e r s i t y which m o v e d p r a c ­

cl os e r to the p r i n c i p l e

s t a t i n g that

the U n i v e r s i t y

155
does not

au th o r i z e

student p u b l i c a t i o n s .

ciple in w h i c h a s i g n i f i c a n t
was

the p r i n c i p l e

difference

s t a t i n g that

The t h i r d p r i n ­
in r e s p o n s e

existed

st ud ents are a l l o w e d to

invite and to hear any p e r s o n of th ei r own choosin g.
Student

leaders i n d i c a t e d that p r a c t i c e s

to this p r i n c i p l e

to a g r e a t e r degree

had m o v e d

closer

tha n p e r c e i v e d by

the other three groups.

Co n c l u s i o n s
It ma y be c o n c l u d e d that the p r i n c i p l e s
upon wh i c h the Repo rt was
de si rab le
the

as

p ri nc ip les.

f o u n d e d are c o n s i d e r e d to be

s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a range

c o m b i n e d samples
This

in mean

sup port s

the a s s u m p t i o n that

closer to these

of the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
Further,

it is

freedoms

to all g r o u p s whi ch ma ke

the p r i n c i p l e s

in the U n i v e r s i t y ,

und er ­
although

are not as desirable

up the U n i v e r s i t y c ommun it y.

s t a te d in the

rights h a v i n g to do w i t h
d if fe rence

as a result

of the Report.

g e n e r a l l y p e r c e i v e d to be d es ir able,

the nine p r i n c i p l e s

the p r i n ­

in the U n i v e r s i t y

desired principles

c o n c l u d e d that

lying c e r t a i n student

forty

and if a c c e p t e d in

it was a s s u m e d that p r a c t i c e s

w o u l d mov e

s c or es of

f r o m 3.4 to 4.9 for each of the

ciples were b e l i e v e d to be d esira bl e
spirit,

or guidelines

se c t i o n

on s t u d e n t

f r eed om of e x p r e s s i o n ,

in the r e spon se made by the

seven of the p r i n c i p l e s was noted.

ciples rela t e to stu de nt p u b l i c a t i o n s

significant

four g r o u p s

Five

Of

of th e s e

on
prin­

an d d i s t ri bu tion.

156

It was this same

area of student

c u sse d a n d d e b a t e d at great
b e f o r e the
Chapter

f r e e d o m w h i c h was

leng th In the A c a d e m i c

final a d o p t i o n of the R e po rt ,

III of this

Caut io n m u s t

on the

as d e s c r i b e d In

be e x e r c i s e d in d r a w i n g any c o n c l us ions

have m o v e d p r a c t i c e s
repo rt

in the U n i v e r s i t y which

c l o s e r to the p r i n c i p l e s

e m b o d i e d in

"Aca demic F r e e d o m for Stu dent s

M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y . "
t a k e n int o account.

Firs t,

Thre e

in C h a p t e r

III, which p r e s e n t e d

de v e l o p m e n t

ma de

by those who we r e i n s t r u m e n t a l

seve ral t im e s

that m a n y

at

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s must be

a brief historical

o p i n g the Report,

Coun cil

study.

from the data re l a t i v e t o changes

the

dis­

of the R e p o r t ,

m e n t i o n was
in d e v e l ­

of the g u i d e l i n e s p r e s e n t e d

h a d long been i m p l i e d and p r a c t i c e d in the U n i v e r s i t y and
that

the Report

This

a s s u m p t i o n was

ma n y

comments m a d e by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

consideration
Report

simply m a d e those p r i n c i p l e s

s u p p o r t e d in the q u e s t i o n n i a r e
and faculty.

is the q u e s t i o n of k n o w l e d g a b i l i t y

a n d a w a r e n e s s to change in pract ic es .

leaders,

faculty

to h a v i n g acce ss

by
A n ot her

o f the

Student

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t e n d e d to be mo re

f a m i l i a r with the Report

Of those

explici t.

as i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r res p o n s e s

to the Rep ort a n d h a v i n g r e a d the Report.

stud ents r e s p o n d i n g only

four out

cated that they h a d rea d the Rep or t
of ten r e s p o n d e d to h a v i n g access
consideration which makes

of ten i n d i ­

a l t h o u g h eight

to the Report.

one cau tio us

in d r aw in g

out
Another

c o n c l u s i o n s is that m a n y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
hesitant

to give

principle
spe ci fic
student

an o p i n i o n

did n o t
duties

on change

fall w i t h i n the

and f a cu lt y wer e

in p r a c t i c e s

if the

f a m i l i a r i t y of t h eir

or r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

On the o t h e r hand,

le ad ers t e n d e d to r e s p o n d to b o t h scales

of the

questionnaire.
Very pronounced

changes

in p r a c t i c e s were not

p e r c e i v e d to h a v e t a k e n place.
were b e l i e v e d to have

taken p l a c e r e l a t i v e

ciple s t a t i n g that m e m b e r s h i p
on d e p a r t m e n t a l
that

and col leg e

students p a r t i c i p a t e

of the

two scales.

tices.

conduct.

w h i c h s t ud ents

awareness

only eight
to change

received
in p r a c ­

area of r e g u l a t i o n s ,

r e v i s i o n in the j ud ic ia l

in the U n i v e r s i t y ,

some

in the p r a c t i c e s

p r i n c i p l e s were

for the

Th i s s e c t i o n of the Rep or t

a process

in

of the r e s p o n d e n t s p o i n t e d

the Rep or t h a d b r o u g h t

the p r i n c i p l e s

score

f ea sibl e

were very m u c h invol ved .

Com m e n t s made by
that

in the

for a c o n s i d e r a b l e

s t r u c t u r e and p r o c e d u r e s

st at e m e n t

3-3 on e a c h of these

3.0 or h i g h e r r e la ti ve

Fo ur o f the eigh t were

t e n d e d to call

out

The me a n

four groups was

rule s a n d s t ude nt

and the

to the m a x i m u m exte nt

O f the forty p r i n c i p l e s ,

m e a n scores of

to the p r i n ­

is p r o v i d e d for stu dents

committees

in f o r m u l a t i n g reg ula ti on s.
responses

The m o s t m a r k e d changes

about

an i n c r e a s e d

of the U n i v e r s i t y r e la ti ve

c o n t a i n e d in the R e p o r t .
a restatement

of those

Although

some

long implied,

to

158

pr a c t i c e s were

s c r u t i n i z e d and r e v i e w e d in r e l a t i o n to

the n e w l y sta t e d pr in ci p l e s .

C om me nts

stated that in cert ai n i ns ta nc es
practices

such as st ud ent

on d e p a r t m e n t a l
result
men t s

fro m a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

changes

in p o l i c i e s and

records a n d student p a r t i c i p a t i o n

and col le ge

comm it te es , we re a direct

of the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Report.
also s u p p o r t e d the b e l i e f that

Several com­

the U n i v e r s i t y is

still u n d e r g o i n g the p r o c e s s o f m o v i n g p r a c t i c e s
to the p r i n c i p l e s put

for th in the Report.

Implications
This
report

study

on the

"Ad ad em ic F r e e d o m for S tu de nts at M i c h i g a n

It is a s s u m e d that this

in a series

was made

an d the a s s e s s m e n t

of e v a l u a t i o n s

to e v a l u a t e

undone.

the Report
ince n t i v e
of the

is but

development

and a

study will be the

and procedures

No att emp t
that have

This appe ar s to be a n e c e s s a r y

The b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t

of

a b e g i n n i n g and s h o u l d serve as an

and r e f e r e n c e

con ce rn s

for one

of the Report.

the p o lic ie s

e v o l v e d from the Report.
task left

of the a c c e p t a n c e of

af t e r it h a d b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d

h a l f years.
first

for F u r t h e r Study

c o n c e r n e d it se l f w i t h the d e v e l o p m e n t of

State U n i v e r s i t y "
the Re po rt

cl os e r

for a much more

and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

comprehensive

that went

study

into the

of the Report.

S e ver al
f u r t h e r study.

areas of d i s a g r e e m e n t
The en ti r e

subject

exist w h i c h meri t
o f student p u b l i c a t i o n s

and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n w a r r a n t s review.

Op ini on s

and

159

concerns were e x p r e s s e d by the various m e mbers

of the

U ni ve r s i t y com mu ni ty w h i c h seem to in d i c a t e that this
m a t t e r is yet

unsettled.

flict appears to reside
s e ct ion of f r ee do ms

Ano ther a r e a of p o ssib le
in those p r i n c i p l e s

in the classroom.

con­

un d e r the

The Repo rt has

not made it clear just h o w the rights of the faculty and
the rights of a student
rights of the
b e y o n d those

can be arbitr at ed.

Perh aps the

faculty n e e d to be e x p a n d e d and c la ri fied
st ate me nt s

p r o f e s s i o n a l right s
Beyond these

a ppear in g in the Report

of the

faculty.

co ns idera ti on s

in which co mp r e h e n s i v e

under the

are g r e a t e r concerns

studies need to be

The whole ar ea of the r e l a t i o n s h i p

of the

c a r ri ed o u t .
student w i t h

the U nivers it y and the role of the st ude nt

in academic

g ov ernanc e, h a v i n g to do wi th such m a t t e r s

as the c o n t r i ­

but ions made by stu den ts
college and f a culty
examined.

on the var i ou s

d e p a rt me nt al,

commit te es, n e e d to be t h o r o u g h l y

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"A L o o s e r R e i n on S tu de nt s."
S u m m a r y of the M c G r a t h
Report at Bro w n Univer sity.
N e w Y o r k Times,
M a y 14, 1967.
" A c a d e m i c F r e e d o m for Stu de nts at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r ­
sity."
East Lansing:
M i c h i g a n State Uni ve rs ity,
March, 1967.
A m e r i c a n Civil Liberties Union.
I n f o r m a t i o n About S t ud en ts
Ne w York, 1965

"Teache rs D i s c l o s u r e of
to Pr o s p e c t i v e Em p l o y e r s . "

_______ . "Academic F r e e d o m and Civil Lib er ti es
in Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s . "
Rev. ed.
1965.
B r o c h u r e p r e p a r e d by the O m b u d s m a n .
East
M i c h i g a n State Univer sity, 1968.

of Students
Ne w York,
__

Lansing:

"C ommi t t e e on Ac a d e m i c I n n o v a t i o n and D e v e l o p m e n t
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at Los Ang el es ."
in Los Ange les T i m e s , D e c e m b e r 6, 1967.

at the
Printed

C ul pe pper, J. Broward,
"All Have M a j o r Roles to Play."
Whose Goals for Highe r E d u c a t i o n ? Ed it e d by Charles
ET Dobbins and C a l v i n B„ T. Lee, A m e r i c a n Cou nci l
on Ed ucation.
W as h in g t o n , D. C., 1968, pp. 133-140.
D i x o n v. A l a b a m a St a t e Boa rd of Educat ion, 294 Fed er al
Reporter, 2nd series, No. 18641, U n i t e d States
Court of Appeals, Circuit 5, 196l.
F o r t a s , Abe.
C o n c e r n i n g Di ss ent and Civil D i s o b e d i e n c e .
New Yorkl
Signe t B o o k s , 19 68.
F ra nk el, Charles.
"Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in the
Student-College Relationship."
The C o l l e g e and the
S t u d e n t . E d i t e d by La w r e n c e E. Dennis and J o s e p h
F~. Kauf'fman. W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.: A m e r i c a n Council
on Edu ca ti on, 1967, pp. 232-251.
Fuchs,

Ralph.
"Acade mic F r e e d o m — Its Basic Philosophy,
F u n c t i o n and Hi st o r y . "
Law a n d C o n t e m p o r a r y
Problems , XXVIII, No. 3 (Summer,' 1963), pp. 431-4 37.

161

162

Gott v. Be r e a College,

156 Ky.,

276,

l6l S.W.

204

(1913).

Hofstader, R i c h a r d and Metzger, W a l t e r P.
The Development
of Academic F r e e d o m In the Unite d S t a t e s ^ N e w York:
C o l u m b i a University' Press, 1^65.
Hughes, Sue.
" Fr e e d o m Report Fo u n d Dead ."
Collage.
M i c h i g a n State N e w s . East Lansing, Michigan,
O c t o b e r 4, 1968.
Joint S ta temen t on Rights and Fre edo ms of S t u d e n t s .
Under the auspices of the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of
U n i v e r s i t y Professors.
W as hi ng ton, D. C., 1966.
Jondahl, Lyn n H.
"The F r e e d o m of Hi gh er Educat ion."
C r o s s r o a d s . Board of C h r i s t i a n Educatio n, Uni te d
P r e s b y t e r i a n Church.
Apr il- Ju ne , 1968, pp. 4-29.
Kadish, Mor t i m e r R.
"Nature of the Problem."
Freedom
and Order in the U n i v e r s i t y . E d i t e d by Samue l Gorovitz.
C l e v e l a n d : W e s t e r n Res er ve U ni ve r s i t y Press, 1967,
pp. 159-177.
Kish,

Leslie.
1965.

Survey

Sampling.

Ne w York:

Kluge,

Don ald A. and Smith, Jacqueline.
"Recent Statements
of Principles, Rights and P ro cedu re s in Student
B eh av ior."
Jour na l of the Na t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of
Wo m e n Deans and C o u n s e l o r s , Wi nter, 1968, pp. 64-68.

Konvitz, M i l t o n R.
Expanding L i berties.
The V i k i n g P r e s s , 19667

Wiley and Sons.

New York:

Kuhn, Madison.
M i c h i g a n State.
The First H u n d r e d Y e a r s .
East Lansing:
M i c h i g a n State U ni ve r s i t y Press,
1955.
Mehrens, W i l l i a m A. a n d Ebel, Robe rt L. (eds.).
Principles
of E d u c a ti on al and Ps yc h o l o g i c a l M e a s u r e m e n t .
C h i c a g o : Rand M c Na lly and Co., 1967.
Metzger, W a l t e r P.
Acad em ic F r e e d o m in the Age of the
University.
New York:
Co l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press.

WFT.
Minu te s of the Ac a d e m i c Cou ncil at M i c h i g a n State Un iv e r ­
sity.
On file in the Off ice of the Sec re tary to
the Faculti es, M i c h i g a n State Universi ty, East
Lansing, Mi ch igan , 1966-1967.

163

M i n u t e s of the F a cu lty C o mm itte e on S t u d e n t A r r a i r s . On
file In the O f f ic e of the V i c e P res id en t for Student
Affairs at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing,
Michi ga n, 1965, 1966, 1967.
Moneyp e n n y , Phillip.
"The Student as a Stude nt. "
Den ver
Law Jou rnal, Vol. *15. No. 4 (Special, 1968). pp.
649-662.
"N on -Acade mic R e l a t i o n s h i p s B e t w e e n Stud en ts and the
Universi ty ."
Report and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of C o m ­
mi tt e e on Stud ent Affairs, U n i v e r s i t y of Kentucky,
May, 1967.
Release by the C o mmit te e on Student Rights, M i c h i g a n
State Unive rs it y, Ea st Lansing, M i c hi ga n, February,
1965.
"Report of the Ad Hoc Committ ee on Mode of Re spo nse to
Obstruction, I n t e r v i e w Policy and R e l a t e d Matters ."
U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madi so n, Wi sco ns in , March,

1968 .
"Report of the C o m m i s s i o n on the I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e of
Unive r s i t y R e g u l a t i o n s and Local, State and Fede ral
Law," Cor n el l University, Ithica, N e w York, September,
1967.
Rudolf, Frederick.
The A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y .
New York:
R a n d o m House, 1962.
Sanford, Nevitt, (ed.).
"Higher E d u c a t i o n as a Fie l d of
Study."
The A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e . N e w York:
Wiley
and Sons, 1966, pp. 31-73.
. Whe re Colleges F a l l .
I n c ~ 1967.

S a n Francisco:

Jos ey -B as s

Schwartz, Edward.
"Commen t,"
L e g a l A s p e c t s of Stu dents
In st i t u t i o n a l Rel atio ns hi ps .
D e n v e r Law Journal,
Vol. 45, No. 4 (1968), pp. 525-532.
S e a v e y . "Dismi ssa l of Students:
Law R e v i e w , 1406, 1957.

Due Pr oces s."

70 H a rv ar d

Siegel, Sidney.
N o n - p a r a m e t r l c S t a t i s t i c s for the
Behavi or al S c i e n c e s . New “
Y ork:
M c G r a w - H i l l Book
60.,

l

96"6.

Statem en t on C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Stud ent R e c o r d s . W a s h i n g t o n
D . C . : A m e r i c a n Cou nc il on Edu ca tion, 11^67.

"S tat em ent on F a c u l t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Aca d e m i c F r e e d o m
for S tu dent s. "
C ommi tt ee S of the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a ­
t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Professors.
A.A.U.P. B u l l e t i n ,
Au tumn, 1964, pp. 254-257.
"S tat em ent on Go ve r n m e n t of Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s . "
A.A.U.P. B u l l e t i n , Vol. 52 (1966), p. 375*
Student Conduct and Dis ci p l i n e Pr o c e e d i n g s in a U n i v e r s i t y
S e t t i n g . Ne w York:
New York U n i v e r s i t y School of
Law, A u g u s t , 1968.
Taylor, Harold.
" F r e e d o m and A u t h o r i t y on Cam pus."
A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e . E d it ed by Nevi tt Sanford.
York:
Wi l e y and Sons, 1966, pp. 774-804.
" U n i v er si ty of O r e g o n Student Conduct
U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1965*

Program."

The
New

Eugene:

V a n Alstyne, W i l l i a m W.
"The Stu de nt as U n i v e r s i t y
Re sid e n t . "
D e nv er Law J o urnal , Vol. 45, No. 4
(Special, 1968), pp. 562-613.
_______ . "The De mi s e of the R i g h t - P r i v i l e g e D i s t i n c t i o n
in Co n s t i t u t i o n a l Law."
8l H a r v a r d Law R e v i e w ,
1439, 1968.
_______ .
Weiss,

Law in T r a n s i t i o n Q u a r t e r l y .

Win t er ,

1965.

Do na ld H.
" F r e e d o m of A s s o c i a t i o n for Stu de nts. "
The Journal of H i g h e r E ducat io n, XXXV II I, No. 4
(April, 1967), ppT 187-189.

W i l l i a m s o n , E. G. and Cowan, Jo h n L.
The Am e r i c a n S t u d e n t s 1
F r e e d o m of E x p r e s s i o n . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of
M i n n e s o t a Press, 1966.
Wilson, Logan.
Journal,
snn

"Campus
Vol. 45,

F r e e d o m and O r de r. "
Den ver Law
No. 4 (Special, 1 9 6 8 ), p p . 5oL-

APPENDICES

166
M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

orncE o r »tudbnt

aftajuu

•

dean

or

e a st l a n s in o

. Mi c h i g a n

4882>

students

As an Assistant to the Vice President for Student Affairs and a doctoral
candidate at Michigan State University, I am conducting a study to evaluate
the report on the "Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University".
The purpose of the study is not to advocate any specific freedoms but to
assess the degree of acceptance or rejection of certain principles expressed
in the report.
All responses will be confidential and no person will be
identified in the study.
A tentative deadline has been established for December 6, 1968.
Your prompt
attention to this project and the return of the questionnaire will be greatly
appreciated.
Please return your response to this office in the enclosed selfaddressed envelope.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Assistant to the Vice President
for Student Affairs

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE IMPACT OF THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM REPORT

The purpose of this questionnaire is to gain your opinion with respect to the impact of
the Academic Freedom Report.
It is understood that the responses you make are derived
from your own experiences as related to your responsibilities as a faculty member,
student or administrator in the University.
The results of this study will be confi­
dential and used for research purposes only. At no time will your name appear in relation
to this study. Please do not sign the questionnaire.
The Academic Freedom Report states certain principles. These are believed to be desired
goals, and the Report provides mechanisms which, hopefully, will move University policies
and practices close to these principles.
Principles relating to'academic and classroom,
student records, student conduct and regulations, and student publications and freedom of
expression appear in this questionnaire. You are requested to make two responses to each
principle:
(a)

the degree to which you feel these principles are desirable;

(b)

the degree to which you feel practices have moved closer to these principles
over the past year because of the Academic Freedom Report.

Any comments, criticisms, or suggested revisions or amendments are solicited in the space
provided after each question. Additional comments may be made on the back of the page.
(Circle One)
Do you have access to the Academic Freedom Report?

Yes

No

Have you read the Academic Freedom Report?

Yes

No

In answering the questionnaire, one response should be selected and circled for each of
the two scales.

Academic and Classroom
1.

The student is free to take reasoned exception to data and views offered in the
classroom, and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, without fear of penalty,

Undesirable
No change

Highly desirable
Great change

Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

2.

Thestudent is protected against improper disclosure cf
informationconcerning his
grades, views, beliefs, political associations, health, or character which an
instructor acquires in the course of his professional relations with the student.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

The student receives accurate and clearly stated information which enables him to
determine his own academic relationship with the University and any special conditions which apply.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

The student receives accurate and clearly stated information which enables him to
determine the general requirements for establishing and maintaining an acceptable
academic standing.
Low

H.i&h

a.

Desirability or principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

Procedures are established for hearing complaints to reconcile a right of the
faculty and the right of a student
Low

Comments:

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

nijail

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

6.

Membership is provided for students on regular departmental and college committees
in which problems are discussed and policies formulated.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

7.

Departments and colleges have clearly defined channels for the receipt and
consideration of student complaints concerning the quality of instruction.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

Student Records
8.

All policies and practices concerning records are based on respect for the privacy
of the individual student.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

9.

There is a demonstrable need for all records retained which is reasonably related
to the basic necessities and purposes of the institution.
Low

Comments:

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

10.

Records of a student's religious or political beliefs are not retained without
his knowledge or consent.
Low
a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

11.

__

A student has the right to inspect the official transcript of his own academic
record.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

12.

A student has the right to inspect reports and evaluations of his conduct, except
letters of recommendation and similar evaluations which are necessarily prepared
on a confidential basis.
Low
a.

High

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b . Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

13.

Evaluations of students are made only by persons qualified to make that evaluation
Low

Co m m e n t s :

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

14.

All persons handling confidential records are instructed concerning the confidential
nature of such information and concerning their responsibilities regarding it.
Hifih

Low
a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

15.

No one outside the faculty or administrative staff has access to the record of a
student's offenses against University regulations without the express permission
of the student in writing.
High

Low
a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5
«

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

16.

Transcripts of academic record contain only information about the academic status
of the student.
Low

Hii &

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

>

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

17.

Membership lists of student organizations, especially those related to matters of
a political belief, or action, are not retained.
High

Low

Commen t s :

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

18.

The enforcement of the students duties to the larger society is left to legal and
judicial authorities duly established for that purpose.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

19.

Only where the institution's interests as an academic community are distinct and
clearly involved is the special authority of the institution asserted in addition
to penalties prescribed by civil authorities.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

20.

Students participate to the maximum extent feasible in formulating and revising
regulations governing student conduct.
High

Low
a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

21.

All regulations governing student conduct are made public in an appropriate manner.
High

Low

Comments:

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

22.

Regulations relating to the communication of ideas encourage the competition of
ideas.
Low

Hi.Kh.

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

23.

There is a demonstrable need for each regulation which is reasonably related to the
basic purposes and necessities of the University.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

<

Comments:

24.

Procedures and penalties for the violation of regulations are designed for guidance
or correction of behavior rather than for retribution.
High

Low
a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

25.

All regulations seek the best possible reconciliation of the principles of
maximum freedom and necessary order.
Low

Comments:

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

26.

Clearly defined channels and procedures exist for the appeal and review of the
finding of guilt in an alleged violation of a regulation.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:_______

____________________

Clearly defined channels and procedures exist for the appeal and review of the
reasonableness, under the circumstances, of the penalty imposed for a specific
violation.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

28.

Clearly defined channels and procedures exist for the appeal and review of the
substance of a regulation or administrative decision.
Low

_HM l

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

29.

Every regulation specifies to whom it applies and whether responsibility for
compliance lies with individuals, groups or both.
Low

Comments:

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

30. Any student accused of violating a regulation has the right to appear before one or
more members of a duly constituted judicial body.
Low

Hi£h

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

Premises occupied by students and the personal possessions of students are not
searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained.
Hifih

Low
a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

Freedom of Expression
Faculty, administrators and students who are not staff members do not exercise any
powers of veto or censorship over news or editorial content in the student newspaper,
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

33.

Students have maximum freedom to express opinions and communicate ideas by writing,
publishing and distributing materials.
Low

Comments:

a.

Desirability of principle

1

2

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1

2

4

5

3^i.

The University does not authorize student publications.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

35.

Responsibility for editorial or other content, finance and distribution lies with
the sponsoring agency group, or organization.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

36.

The privilege of distribution which is accorded to any free student publication is
equally accorded to all.
Low

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

Comments:

37.

The University neither authorizes nor prohibits the solicitation of advertising by
any student publication.
Low

C o m m e n is :

High

a.

Desirability of principle

1 2

3

4

5

b.

Degree of change in past year

1 2

3

4

5

168
MICHIGAN
omcB or t h a

STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

dban

or

b a s t l a n s in o

• Mi c h i g a n 4s « )

s t u d e n t s • s t u d e n t sb b v ic b s b u i l d i n g

We need your assistance before the close of the term!
Recently we mailed
you a questionnaire regarding your opinions to the report on the "Academic
Freedom for Students at Michigan State University".
In order to be of
benefit to the student and to the Universityy your response is needed.
Would you kindly fill out and return the duplicate questionnaire which we
have enclosed.
If you have already done so, please disregard this request.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,

Robert R. Fedore
Assistant to the
Dean of Students
Ph. 353-6470