72-8670 ENOS, Brian Richard, 1940AN EXAMINATION OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS’ OPINIONS REGARDING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN SELECTED ACADEMIC DECISION-MAKING MATTERS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971 Education, higher University Microfilms, A XEROXC om pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan BRIAN RICHARD ENOS 1971 AN EXAMINATION OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS' OPINIONS REGARDING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN SELECTED ACADEMIC DECISION-MAKING MATTERS By Brian Richard Enos A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS' OPINIONS REGARDING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN SELECTED ACADEMIC DECISION-MAKING MATTERS By Brian Richard Enos Involvement of undergraduate students in governance affairs of American colleges and universities, though not a recent phenomenon, has become an issue commanding consider­ able attention among educators in the last decade. Much of the controversy surrounds the extent to which undergraduates should participate in making decisions that, heretofore, have rested almost exclusively within the domain of faculty and administrators. The institution's problem of defining appropriate student roles in "academic" matters is compli­ cated by the apparent inability of educators to agree on such issues as the types of decisions in which students should be involved, the roles of faculty members in compara­ ble m a tt er s, and the anticipated consequences of increased student participation. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify and describe how Michigan State University faculty and academic administrators perceive certain issues related to undergraduate student involvement in selected academic Brian Richard Enos decision-making matters. More specific objectives included determining whether substantial agreements and/or disagree­ ments exist among those having different faculty statuses, or among those affiliated with various types of academic colleges, with respect to the following concerns: (1) the extent to which undergraduates should be involved in faculty personnel and/or curriculum-related decision-making matters; (2) the extent to which students are perceived to be qualified for participation in personnel and/or curriculum matters; (3) perceptions of faculty roles in personnel and/or curriculum matters; and (4) the extent to which various con­ sequences of undergraduate involvement are thought likely to affect students, faculty, or the general university community. Opinions were solicited by means of an instrument designed following a pilot study of MSU faculty and adminis­ trator samples similar to those included in the final study. The eleven scales of items, grouped into variable sets, had internal consistency reliability coefficients ranging from .79 to .92. More than 80 percent of the participants re­ turned completed and usable questionnaires; several were randomly discarded to facilitate treatment of the data. A three-way analysis of variance for repeated measures tech­ nique was applied to group means to detect any statistically significant differences between the means. Scheffe post hoc comparisons were used to contrast significantly different group mean scores. General findings of this study included: Brian Richard Enos 1. Non-tenured faculty members felt undergraduates should have greater involvement in personnel and curriculumrelated matters, and they perceived more favorable conse­ quences resulting from such student participation, than did either tenured faculty or academic administrators. Non­ tenured faculty were more liberal in their opinions about faculty roles and qualifications of undergraduates to par­ ticipate in the decision-making matters than was the admin­ istrator group. Tenured faculty and administrators were in basic agreement on all variable sets. 2. Grouping respondents according to their affil­ iation with Liberal Arts, Social Science, or Natural Science colleges produced no significant differences in mean con­ trasts on any variable sets. 3. The total sample evidenced greater receptivity to larger numbers of undergraduates having voting privileges in curriculum matters as opposed to personnel issues. They also preferred student involvement in determining general curriculum and personnel policies rather than in decision­ making affecting specific courses and degree programs or individual faculty statuses. 4. Respondents thought undergraduates are better qualified for participation in curriculum-related than in personnel concerns. No comparably significant distinctions were evident in contrasts of perceived faculty roles in the two types of matters. Brian Richard Enos 5. Respondents anticipated that consequences of undergraduate voting membership in personnel and curriculum decision-making processes would have more favorable effects upon students and faculty than upon the general university community. The practice of such student involvement was not thought likely to have any more favorable or unfavorable effects upon students than upon faculty members. PLEASE NOTE: Some P a g e s h a v e i n d i s t i n c t print. Filmed as r e c e i v e d . UNI VERSI TY MICROFILMS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful appreciation is extended to three members of the author's Guidance Committee— Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker who served as chairman, Dr. Walter Johnson, and Dr. John Fuzak— for their encouragement and support throughout the academic program. Dr. Margaret Lorimer and Mr. Jim Maas provided valuable assistance in developing the instrument and analyzing the data, in addition to being welcomed sources of inspiration. The consideration and friendships of many in the Residence Hall Programs Office and in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University, particularly that demonstrated by Dr. George VanDusen and other colleagues in the Student Affairs division, will always be remembered. And to Judith Lynne, a wonderful wife who has made unselfish sacrifices and has contributed much more than she will ever realize, I express my deepest and most affectionate gratitude. * * * iii * TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. Page THE P R O B L E M ................................... 1 Introduction ............................... Need and Importance of This S t u d y ......... A Critical Issue ...................... The Important Opinions ............... The Advancing Theory .................. Purpose of This S t u d y ...................... Questions to Be A n s w e r e d .................. Design of the S t u d y ........................ Limitations of the S t u d y .................. Significance of the S t u d y .................. Definition of T e r m s ........................ O v e r v i e w ................................... 1 5 5 11 13 19 22 24 27 28 30 32 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .................... 34 Introduction ............................... Related Literature ........................ Related Research .......................... S u m m a r y ..................................... 34 34 47 62 STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Introduction ............................... The "Academic Freedom Report" ............. The "Massey R e p o r t " ........................ The "McKee R e p o r t " ........................ The "Taylor R e p o r t " ........................ Related Research............................. S u m m a r y ..................................... IV. DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y .......................... Introduction ............................... The Population and S a m p l e s ............... Instrumentation ............................. Collection of the Data ............. Treatment of the D a t a ...................... S u m m a r y ..................................... iv 65 65 66 71 81 91 107 117 120 120 120 124 134 137 140 Chapter Page V. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ............................ 141 ................................... 141 Introduction Analysis of the D a t a ........................... 141 Interpretation of the D a t a .................... 162 Student Involvement in the Selected Academic Matters ....................... 164 Student Qualifications and Faculty R o l e s ...................................... 16 7 Anticipated Effects of Student I n v o l v e m e n t ............................... 169 S u m m a r y ...........................................171 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 175 ................................... 175 Introduction S u m m a r y ...........................................175 C o n c l u s i o n s ...................................... 181 D i s c u s s i o n ...................................... 185 Recommendations ................................ 209 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. 214 Appendix A. B. C. D. AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT . . . . 230 REPORT OF THE NEW COMMITTEE ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT . . . . 241 REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT .. 260 COVER LETTERS TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND I N S T R U M E N T ................................... 30 3 E. TABLES OF SCHEFFE POST HOC COMPARISONS F. TABLES OF ITEM MEANS AND STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S ...................................... 314 v . . . . 312 LIST OF TABLES Page Hoyt Internal Consistency Reliability ........... Coefficients on Study Instrument 133 Summary of Participating and NonParticipating Subjects in Samples ........... 135 Analysis of Variance Table for Variable Set I .......................................... 144 Faculty Status Group Means— Repeated ......... Measures Matrix for Variable Set I 145 College Group Means--Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set I .................... 145 Analysis of Variance Table for Variable Set II ........................................ 151 Faculty Status Group Means--Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set II ......... 152 College Group Means--Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set II .................. 152 Analysis of Variance Table for Variable Set III ........................................ 15 8 Faculty Status Group Means— Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set III 159 . . . . College Group Means— Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set III .................. 159 Selected Scheffe Post Hoc Comparisons of Faculty Status Group Means in All Variable Sets ................................. 312 Selected Scheffe Post Hoc Comparisons of Within Group Means on Repeated Measures in All Variable Sets ........................ 313 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Total Sample and Faculty Status Groups on Items in Variable Set I .................. 314 vi Table 7.4 7.5 Page Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Total Sample and Faculty Status Groups on Items in Variable Set I I .................. 315 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Total Sample and Faculty Status Groups on Items in Variable Set I I I ................ 316 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 5.1 Profile of faculty status group means on repeated measures in Variable Set I .............. 147 5.2 Profile of Variable Set I repeated measures relationships within faculty g r o u p s ............................................. 147 5.3 Profile of faculty status group means on repeated measures in Variable Set I I ............ 154 5.4 Profile of Variable Set II repeated measures relationships within faculty g r o u p s ............................................. 154 5.5 Profile of faculty status group means on repeated measures in Variable Set I I I ............ 160 5.6 Profile of Variable Set III repeated measures relationships within faculty g r o u p s ............................................. 160 vii i CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Expressions of discontent felt by American college students have taken many forms and have occurred with unprecedented frequency in the past decade. Few campus concerns in recent years have commanded as much discussion and examination, either within or outside academic circles, as those pertaining to the causes, handling, or prevention of "student unrest." Many analysts suggest that current restlessness is not dissimilar from that witnessed throughout history— that today's collegians are not a "different breed" compared with previous adolescents or that the pressures and frustrations of student life are not unique to this genera­ tion. Other observers claim contemporary students are better informed and more sensitive to what they perceive as gross inequities in the societal structure and more commit­ ted to rearranging the system of national priorities. Amid, and largely as a result of, student haranguing, more than cursory attention is also being focused on inter­ nal conditions existing within the college or university setting. Higher education officials are being challenged to consider such issues as racial discrimination, expanding 1 2 enrollments inhibiting individual development, irrelevant curricula, arbitrary rules and regulations, unfair disci­ plinary procedures, "sand-box" student governments, and a lack of quality teaching. One issue which has generated considerable dialogue concerns the roles of students in institutional governing processes. It is no longer uncommon to hear college stu­ dents demand greater opportunities to participate in the making of university decisions which directly affect their lives. Moreover, the issues which appear to concern stu­ dents include not only the usual behavioral codes of conduct, student discipline, or residence hall regulations, but also some "academic" matters in which they have had limited, if any, involvement in the past (e.g., establishing priorities and objectives of the university, curriculum development, instruction and course evaluation, admissions policies, undergraduate degree requirements). Not surprisingly, responses from educators have ranged from very favorable and encouraging to apprehensive and adamantly negative. Some decry the "power grabbing" efforts of students as an encroachment upon the scholar's academic freedom, while others feel students are justified in seeking entrance into the community of scholars and only wish to influence decision-making, not control it. Though some warn of disturbing consequences in replacing traditional teacher-student authority relationships with "political-style" confrontations, others anticipate such 3 confrontations would take the form of constructive discus­ sions and could make the institution less vulnerable to emotional appeals from the "violent-prone" minority. The situation was aptly described by Logan Wilson: Conceived ideally as an institution where every­ body is presumed to be engaged in the pursuit of learning, colleges and universities may be regarded as enterprises in which nobody's acqui­ sition of knowledge diminishes everybody else's possible share. If there were no other circum­ stances affecting the common endeavor, then perhaps there would be no competiton or con­ flict in academe about means and ends. Actual institutions, however, are human organizations whose members do not and cannot share equally in such matters as influence, authority, and power. Entitlement to these valued possessions is inevitably a source of dispute (39:iii). As the dispute rages on and the range of views widens, it becomes an increasingly difficult task to develop a perspective about student roles and responsibilities in academic government. several factors. Such an effort is complicated by Wilson noted one of the obvious problems: ". . . most writings about academic governance are based largely upon the impressions and opinions of individual commentators. Typically, they are in essay form and rely heavily upon rhetoric rather than factual inquiry to make their points" (34:iii). Although many such opinions do reflect eloquently upon favorable or unfavorable implica­ tions for student participation, evidence gathered from systematic examinations must provide supplementary insight into the perceptions of those most intimately involved with, and responsible for, educational decisions. 4 Another problem has to do with understanding the semantics employed in much of the rhetoric and available research studies. Such terms as "faculty" and "adminis­ trators" are frequently ill-defined and may not adequately encompass respective campus populations. Phrases like "governance matters," "academic decisions," or "decision­ making processes" could represent any number of different matters if not properly qualified. The fact that opinions tend to vary considerably depending upon references to specific matters and contexts maximizes the confusion. For example, one may favor increased student participation in some "academic" matters and not others, approve advisory status for students but not voting privileges, accept stu­ dents on an all-university senate but not on departmental committees, deny membership on decision-making bodies to undergraduates elected by their peers, reject the idea of students having more than 10 percent representation on any deliberative committee, or authorize graduate but not under­ graduate representation. A comprehensive analysis of perceived roles for students in institutional governance is beyond the scope of this study. Insight can be provided, however, and administrators' issues. into faculty opinions relative to several recurring Is there greater receptivity to undergraduates being involved in certain academic matters? Are undergrad­ uates qualified to participate in such decisions? What responsibilities should faculty assume in these decisions? 5 What consequences are perceived as likely to occur should undergraduate students assume greater decision-making responsibilities for such matters? These are some of the concerns to which this study is addressed. Need and Importance of This Study The impetus for this study was based upon three fundamental assumptions: (1) the issue of student involve­ ment in institutional decision-making is a critical one in higher education, and one which has commanded much attention at Michigan State University; (2) identifying the opinions of faculty and administrators is necessary in developing a more thorough understanding of this issue; and (3) empirical studies must complement the mass of expressed rhetoric in order to advance a theoretical foundation for understanding the numerous controversies surrounding this issue. A Critical Issue Precipitated by strains associated with rapid physical growth, altered expectations of society, and the voluminous expansion of man's knowledge, higher education in the United States is characterized by dramaticaJiy different pedagogical philosophies, objectives and institutional prac­ tices. Although such conditions are not without precedent, on the American educational scene, divergent views, the manifestations of in the form of serious conflicts at insti­ tutions like Columbia, Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin, ban Francisco State, and Cornell, are phenomena unparalleled in 6 our history. There are those who argue that the present situation reflects "crises of legitimacy" of turmoil" (57, 83), "states (31), "painful clashes" of attitudes and values (36), "a confusion of forms" disenfranchisement" (91), and serious "feelings of (88). Any attempt to afix singular, isolated "causes" to such outbreaks would be an exercise in oversimplification. "Allowing greater student participation on committees" has been identified, however, as one of the most prevalent issues giving rise to protests at those colleges and univer­ sities recently experiencing violence or disruption (26:11). Another observer, after examining the opinions of more than 900 college and university presidents, commented on the importance of this topic: Those who wish to restore to the campus the conditions indispensable to the achievement of the proper goals of an academic society, and who wish at the same time to realize the reforms necessary to correct the present shortcomings of American higher education, will earnestly con­ sider ways to involve students in academic gov­ ernment. Means must be found to formalize the students' participation in the making of academic policy, to regularize their contribution, and to involve them as initiators of, rather than as protesters against, policy (110:50). There is little question that college and university officials are being advised to examine the structure of institutional governance, particularly with respect to areas in which students could conceivably become involved. For example, a statement issued and endorsed by ten professional education associations suggested: 7 As constituents of the academic community/ students should be free, individually and collectively, to express their views on issues of institutional policy and on matters of gen­ eral interest to the student body. The stu­ dent body should have clearly defined means to participate in the formulation and application of institutional policy affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the student gov­ ernment in both its general and specific re­ sponsibilities should be made explicit, and the actions of the student government within the areas of its jurisdiction should be reviewed only through orderly and prescribed procedures (85:155). Among other recommendations for dealing with campus disorders, the National Commission on the Causes and Preven­ tion of Violence addressed itself to this issue: 1. . . . in the university community a con­ sensus should be achieved among students, faculty, and administration, and embodied in a code of conduct, concerning both the permissible method of presenting ideas, proposals, and grievances and the responses to be made to deviations from the agreedupon standards (145:215). 2. . . . procedures for campus governance and constructive reform should be developed, especially by the faculties, to permit more rapid and effective decision-making (145:216). The National Association of Student Personnel Admin­ istrators' Ad Hoc Committee on Student Power recommended that the concept of "shared power" between contending inter­ est groups on the campus should become part of the "new uni­ versity" community. of student power In suggesting that the constructive use (predicated upon the reasoned worth of ideas and not on a one man-one vote concept) is not alien to the basic purposes of the university, the NASPA committee noted the following conditions as contributing to constructive 8 student power: disagreement, general acceptance of the legitimacy of the emergence of students understanding edu­ cational issues and employing constructive methods for involvement, administrative acceptance of these students as participants in decision-making, and the introduction of innovative learning and teaching procedures (144) . A recent AAUP statement noted that students "have a distinctive role which . . . qualifies them to share in the exercise of responsible authority on campus; the exercise of that authority is part of their education" (37:33). While allocating to students the primary responsibility for extra­ curricular activities and the formulation of "clear and readily available regulations pertaining to their personal lives," the statement said that student views should be heard on such issues as admissions policies, development of current and new programs, course loads, degree requirements, course evaluation and direction, form and conduct of classes, faculty status, grading systems, academic arrangements and services, student discipline, institutional budgets, physi­ cal resources, and relationships with external groups or agencies. In commenting that the "need for cooperation among all groups is inescapable," the AAUP statement further advised: Most importantly, joint effort among all groups in the institution--students, faculty, adminis­ tration, and governing board--is a prerequisite of sound academic government. A further pre­ requisite is that all must see themselves as custodians of academic freedom. Like any other group, students should have a voice, sometimes 9 the predominant voice, in decisions which affect them, and their opinions should be regularly solicited even in those areas in which they hold a secondary interest. But academic government depends on more than the accommodation of diverse interests. Joint effort, to be effective, must be rooted in the concept of shared authority. The exercise of shared authority in college and university government, like the protection of academic freedom, requires tolerance, respect, and a sense of community which arises from partic­ ipation in a common enterprise (37:33). Several institutions of higher education have reflected upon this critical issue in the aftermath of violent, crippling disturbances. A fact-finding commission appointed to investigate the 1968 Columbia University up­ heaval commented: The student body is a mature and essential part of the community of scholars. This principle has more validity today than ever before in history. It is felt more keenly by a wider number of students, perhaps because of the increasing democratization of human institu­ tions. As with all human activities, the wise division of functions and responsibilities must take into account the special skills or limita­ tions of particular groups, as well as efficiency of operation. The process of drawing students into more vital participation in the governance of the university is infinitely complex. It cannot be resolved by either abstractions or tables of organization. It does not mean that issues must be settled by referenda. We are convinced, however, that ways must be found, beginning now, by which students can meaning­ fully influence the education afforded them and other aspects of the university activities (193:198). The Study Commission on University Governance of The University of California at Berkeley offered the following assessment: 10 We by no means minimize the possibility that increased student involvement will produce worthwhile innovations and better decisions. Nor do we discount the potentiality of such participation as a partial corrective for a major deficiency in American university prac­ tice: the failure to evaluate adequately and systematically its own educational performance. We do not, however, regard these considerations as the major rationale for student participation. Incorporating students into academic policy­ making is essential if today's large university is to create an environment that more success­ fully promotes the realization of its still unfilled educational ideals. The pre-eminent argument for achieving greater student partic­ ipation in the shaping of educational policy thus springs from our long-range educational ambitions and our apprehension about the wide gap presently separating our educational per­ formance from the desirable goal of deeply involving students in the direction of their education (55:82). These references evidence the widespread concern about this question, a concern shared by many educators on campuses around the country. An examination of pos­ sible roles and responsibilities for students in academic decision-making processes has been conducted over a period of several years at Michigan State University. A reading of Chapter III of this study will provide an awareness of the proceedings through spring, to assume that many students, 1971. It is not unwarranted faculty, and administrators at MSU, because of the extensive investigation given thus far, perceive this issue as important for the future of the University. 11 The Important Opinions In commenting on his study of faculty perceptions of their roles in university governance, Archie Dykes noted: "If the subtleties and complexities of such participation are to be understood, professional attitudes about it must be known. ... By examining these attitudes and percep­ tions, we may gain some insight into the consonances and dissonances of that role" (34:vi). The factors associated with the issue of student involvement in institutional decision-making functions are equally subtle and complex. And the "professional atti­ tudes" of faculty and administrators must be examined and understood before the problem will be resolved, for within these groups rests the primary influence and power to make decisions relative to the functions, purposes, and continued operation of the institution. W. Donald Bowles once sug­ gested that "the faculty is the one group which, under any circumstances, the students must get to if they wish to share academic power in the institution" (18:160). The claim that faculty reluctance to change is the "chief hurdle for innovation to overcome" (109:154) further attests to the influence of this segment of the campus population. Not only will faculty and administrators have to provide the opportunities, but their support and encourage­ ment of student participants is the foundation upon which the success of such a movement will be built. In calling attention to the fact that it is one thing for undergraduate 12 students to win some rights but another thing to win the freedom that they imagine goes along with adult status, Christopher Jencks and David Riesman warn: "... the young can no more afford to go their own way independent of adults than Ghana or Cuba can get on without help from at least some of the great powers" The academicians' (83:60). influence in this matter is evi­ dent at Michigan State University. In October, 1969, the MSU Academic Council voted to recommit, "for further consid­ eration," a document entitled the Ad Hoc Committee Report on Student Participation in Academic Government (7). The new student-facuity committee, appointed to conduct further dis­ cussions on the issue, began its work "with the conviction that the discussions in Academic Council clearly indicated substantial agreement that students should be involved in the academic decision-making process of the University" (160:1). The resulting Report of the New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government (160) was modified and subsequently approved by the Academic Council, but the faculty bylaw amendments necessary for implementa­ tion of the recommendations in the report were soundly rejected by the Academic Senate in June, 1970. Although it endorsed the "objective of greater student involvement in academic governance," the successful resolution referred the bylaw revisions back to the Council for reconsideration and clarification of "ambiguities," "contradictions," and "some questionable provisions" (137:7). 13 A third report, Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Government (161) was passed by the Academic Council and the Senate, delayed by the Board of Trustees pending alterations, and subsequently accepted by all three bodies. This report, widely criti­ cized by the student press and many student leaders, spe­ cifically excluded students from participation in certain matters relating to the professional rights and responsi­ bilities of faculty. After two-and-one-half years of con­ centrated discussion and the development of basic guidelines to include students in academic governance, disagreement about appropriate student roles was still evident among campus constituencies. The Advancing Theory The development of a theoretical foundation upon which understanding of a complex issue is built is usually advanced by interrelating various findings or interpre­ tations from empirical studies and related literature. Ideally, the accumulated body of knowledge is sufficiently generalizable that its transference and application in appropriately similar settings enhances our understanding of the issue in those settings. Though the question of undergraduate student involvement in university governance functions has been the topic of considerable discussion and, at least, moderate study within academe, knowledge of the relationships among several controversial issues is inade­ quate. An examination of related literature and studies 14 (see Chapter II) reflects the confusion surrounding this issue, and demonstrates the difficulty in trying to inter­ relate various interpretations or findings. On the other hand, several reports have indicated that the scope and magnitude of student involvement in institutional decision-making processes has increased sub­ stantially, particularly in the last few years. One exten­ sive study claims that more than 60 percent of the surveyed institutions had student representatives on various policy­ making committees, with 85 percent of these colleges and universities granting voting privileges to the student members (205). Another study found a large majority of faculty and administrators expressing as "desirable or essential" the idea that students will have voting member­ ship on the most important academic committees on the campus (24). A recent ACLU survey concluded that students now occupy seats on most academic policy-making bodies (5), while yet another researcher found student participation in faculty committees to be a rule rather than an exception, with 88.3 percent of 875 schools reporting student members on at least one policy-making body (110). Upon closer examination, however, it would appear that both the "important academic" or "faculty" committees in which students do participate, and those in which it is felt students should have greater opportunities to partic­ ipate,vary with the specific issues or matters being dis­ cussed or acted upon by the committee. For example, it is 15 evident that faculty and administrators are somewhat less receptive to students being involved in matters of a curriculum-related nature, and very much opposed to students having responsibilities for faculty personnel issues, as contrasted with such concerns as extracurricular activities, disciplinary proceedings, behavioral codes of conduct, etc. Although some studies have suggested a tendency for uni­ versity officials and faculty to accept increased student participation in curriculum but not personnel matters (5, 38, 104, 110), other observers have reported that similar populations are against students being involved in decision­ making processes dealing with either curriculum or personnel issues (27, 39, 73, 192). Beyond the questionable generalizations about stu­ dent participation in "academic" governance, caution must also be exercised in describing faculty and administrators' perceptions regarding "curriculum" and "personnel" matters. Though most available research efforts have neglected this aspect of the problem, opinions may vary considerably depending upon the specificity of curriculum or personnel decisions. Buell Gallagher, for example, approved of stu­ dents being involved in determining general tenure policies but did not feel students should participate in making decisions about tenure appointments of individual faculty members (59).* Kingman Brewster referred to questions of *Golden and Rosen found similar feelings among students at three New York colleges (62). 16 establishing degree requirements and specific appointments or promotions as "faculty sanctuaries" (19). Dutton found faculty attitudes differing sharply between whether students should be involved in curricula design, grading policies, or employment and retention of faculty or staff (38), and another faculty sample agreed students should be allowed to evaluate teaching performances only if the respective faculty members were the sole recipients of the confidential information (114). The failure to adequately define or qualify terms, and to clearly distinguish between types of academic decision-making matters, has limited the contribu­ tion of many research studies in examining this issue. Similar methodological limitations are evident in other studies of "faculty" or "administrators." With few notable exceptions, researchers "lump together" faculty members and administrators into two respective populations, select a sample for study, and imply that their findings are generalizable to all "faculty" or "administrators" without regard to possible within-group variability. For example, an investigator included "academic" and "non-academic" administrators in one respondent group and reported that certain attitudes were characteristic of "administrators" (142). This method of analysis may not accurately reflect the attitudes of the population since there is evidence sug­ gesting the attitudes of "non-academic" administrators (e.g., student personnel deans) may differ substantially from those held by "academic" administrators (38, 64, 71, 197). 17 Few researchers have addressed themselves to the question of whether opinions about student participation in university governance matters vary within or between faculty and administrator populations. One study found no substan­ tial differences between younger and older faculty at Berkeley (192, Wilson and Gaff study), and Masingill reported higher ranking faculty at a Louisiana school were no more liberal in their attitudes in this matter than other faculty, except in the College of Liberal Arts (104). Two studies did find somewhat differing opinions among various campus constituencies, including faculty and administrators (38, 71), while other investigators have surmised that mem­ bership in particular academic disciplines may be related to such matters as grading practices and curricular revisions (61), perceptions of student misbehavior (81), or attitudes towards the proper roles of faculty and students in contem­ porary universities, perceptions of appropriate university functions, and freedom of expression on the campus (96). Additional data from replicated or similar studies on particular campuses should facilitate understanding the range of opinions about student participation in institu­ tional governing affairs. As one peruses the literature of higher education, it is difficult to escape explanations of "reasons" why some educators favor greater student participation in certain areas of university governance, and why others do not. Pro­ ponents of greater student participation argue that students are "mature" enough to assume such responsibilities, that faculty members should be more sensitive to student concerns and opinions, or that there is a need to develop "relation­ ships of trust" among campus constituents. Opponents, on the other hand, suggest that students lack "interest" or "experience" to be involved in certain matters, that "academic freedom" would be threatened, that only faculty members are qualified to judge their peers and design cur­ ricula, or that decision-making processes would become more laborious and time-consuming. The diversity of opinions expressed in such rhetor­ ical contexts defies precise classification. And the re­ searcher's problem of identifying, and controlling for, the many variables which could "cause" educators to feel the way they do about this issue is not easily resolved. Without being concerned about defining "causal" relationships, one might begin, as Borg suggests, "by attempting through a sub­ jective appraisal to identify some of the specific variables that appear to be important in the complex characteristic or behavior pattern that is to be studied" (16:272). A few studies have established a foundation upon which additional investigations may be based. A recent NASPA sponsored report, for example, found university pres­ idents and faculty members less convinced of the "maturity and ability" of students to participate in certain governing activities, while student leaders and Deans of Students seemed to have more confidence in students' capabilities 19 (38:14). These findings contributed to the suggestion that conflicts over governance stem, in part, from the institu­ tions' "view of the student." The study group commented that as long as the conception of the student as "a learner who is in the process of developing and growing in capacity to make wise judgements" is held, as opposed to the percep­ tion of the student as a "mature, responsible person with the ability to participate on equal terms with others, . . . governance will be a source of tension in higher education" (38:24). Other studies have pointed out per­ ceived advantages and disadvantages associated with greater student participation (e.g., 104, 27, 73), either of which could conceivably influence the development of favorable or unfavorable opinions about this issue. Nonetheless, the paucity of research efforts becomes increasingly apparent in light of wide-ranging expressions of opinion in educa­ tional literature. Purpose of This Study The general purpose of this study is to identify and describe how Michigan State University faculty members and academic administrators perceive certain issues related to undergraduate students being involved as participants in selected academic decision-making matters. As such, the study will be principally descriptive and exploratory in nature. 20 More specifically, the objectives of this study will be t o : 1. Identify the opinions of randomly-selected groups of Michigan State University non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators, stratified also on the basis of their affiliation with one of three college groups--Liberal Arts colleges, Social Science col­ leges, and Natural Science colleges--regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in selected academic decision-making matters. The selected "academic decision-making matters" include faculty personnel and curriculum-related matters. Definitions of the three faculty groups and three college groups are provided in the "Design of the Study" and "Definition of Terms" sections later in this chapter. 2. Identify the opinions of the sample groups regarding the extent to which undergraduate students are qualified to participate in faculty personnel and curriculumrelated decision-making matters. 3. Identify the opinions of the sample groups regarding the roles of faculty members in faculty personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters. 4. Identify the opinions of the sample groups regarding the likelihood of various consequences occurring as a result of undergraduate students having voting privi­ leges on decision-making bodies considering faculty person­ nel and curriculum-related matters. The statements of 21 anticipated consequences or results are grouped into three sets: effects upon students, effects upon faculty, and effects upon the general university community. 5. Determine the areas of shared and differential perceptions held by non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in the selected academic decision-making matters. 6. Determine the areas of shared and differential perceptions held by those affiliated with Liberal Arts, Social Science, and Natural Science colleges regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in the selected academic decision-making matters. 7. Determine the areas of shared and differential perceptions held by non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators regarding the extent to which undergraduate students are qualified to participate, and the roles .of faculty members, in faculty personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters. 8. Determine the areas of shared and differential perceptions held by those affiliated with Liberal Arts, Social Science, and Natural Science colleges regarding the extent to which undergraduate students are qualified to participate, and the roles of faculty members, in faculty personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters. 9. Determine the areas of shared and differential perceptions held by non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, 22 and academic administrators regarding the likelihood of various consequences occurring as a result of undergraduate students having voting privileges on decision-making bodies considering faculty personnel and curriculum-related matters. 10. Determine the areas of shared and differential perceptions held by those affiliated with Liberal Arts, Social Science, and Natural Science colleges regarding the likelihood of various consequences occurring as a result of undergraduate students having voting privileges on decision­ making bodies considering faculty personnel and curriculumrelated matters. 11. Seek answers to the following questions which are relevant to the data gathered in this study. Questions to Be Answered General questions to be answered by this study will include: 1. Are there substantial agreements and/or disagree­ ments between "faculty status groups" (non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators) at Michigan State University regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in selected faculty personnel and/or curriculum-related decision-making matters? 2. Are there substantial agreements and/or disagree­ ments between "college groups" (faculty and academic adminis­ trators affiliated with Liberal Arts, Social Science, and Natural Science colleges) at Michigan State University 23 regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in selected faculty personnel and/or curriculumrelated decision-making matters? 3. Are there substantial agreements and/or disagree­ ments between the faculty status groups regarding the extent to which undergraduate students are qualified to participate, or the perceived roles of faculty me mbers, in personnel and/ or curriculum-related decision-making matters? 4. Are there substantial agreements and/or dis­ agreements between the college groups regarding the extent to which undergraduate students are qualified to participate, or the perceived roles of faculty members, in personnel and/ or curriculum-related decision-making matters? 5. Are there substantial agreements and/or dis­ agreements between the faculty status groups regarding the likelihood of various consequences occurring as a result of undergraduate students having voting privileges on decision­ making bodies considering personnel and curriculum-related matters? 6. Are there substantial agreements and/or disagree­ ments between the college groups regarding the likelihood of various consequences occurring as a result of undergraduate students having voting privileges on decision-making bodies considering personnel and curriculum-related matters? 24 Design of the Study Nine randomly selected groups of Michigan State University faculty members and academic administrators will serve as the samples in this study. These samples consist of non-tenured faculty from each of three groups of MSU colleges (Liberal Arts, Social Science, and Natural Science colleges), tenured faculty from each of the three college groups, and academic administrators from each of the three college groups. Non-tenured faculty are defined as those members of the "regular faculty"* at MSU affiliated with an academic department and college, not serving in academic administrative capacities (as defined below), and who have not attained tenure status. Tenured faculty are those reg­ ular faculty members affiliated with an academic department and college, not serving in academic administrative capac­ ities, and who have attained tenure status. Academic administrators includes directors of residence instruction (in the Liberal Arts group), department chairmen or acting department chairmen, and deans, associate deans or assistant deans of MSU colleges. The college groups are: Liberal Arts— College of Arts and Letters, Justin Morrill College, and two of the *"Regular faculty" consists of "all persons ap­ pointed under the rules of tenure and holding the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor except those on part-time or temporary appoint­ ment (Bylaws of the Faculty, Michigan State University, 1968, Section 1.1.1, p. 5). 25 four departments within the University College (American Thought and Language, and Humanities); Social Science— James Madison College, College of Business, College of Communica­ tion Arts, College of Education, College of Human Ecology, and College of Social Science, including the University College Social Science department; Natural Science— Lyman Briggs College, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College of Engineering, College of Human Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, and College of Natural Sciences, including the University College Natural Science department. With the exception of separating the University College departments, the rationale for grouping the colleges in such a fashion stems from the Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Government suggestion that these groups facilitate "the purpose of distributing the undergraduate representatives so far as possible accord­ ing to competency in the several areas of instruction" 28). (161: Presumably, these "several areas of instruction are not exclusively applicable to students and, as such, could serve as a reasonable model for grouping other personnel affiliated with the fifteen colleges (faculty and adminis­ trators principally associated with the newly developed College of Osteopathic Medicine are not included in this study). The reason for separating the University College departments is based upon the assumption that those in the Social Science department may hold views more consistent with representatives from the College of Social Science, and 26 those in the Natural Science department may reflect opinions more related to faculty and administrators in the College of Natural Sciences, than with those in the Liberal Arts col­ leges and departments. The study instrument consists of three separate sections or "Variable Sets." Section I lists twenty-eight different faculty personnel and curriculum-related matters which commonly require decision-making action. These mat­ ters are equally divided among those representing specific personnel concerns (e.g., "Appointing the department chair­ man"), general personnel concerns (e.g., "Establishing guidelines for appointing department chairmen"), specific curriculum concerns (e.g., "Adding new courses to the cur­ riculum"), and general curriculum concerns (e.g., "Develop­ ing university policy on adding courses to the curriculum"). Each respondent is asked to indicate by means of a four item Likert-type scale, the extent to which he feels undergradu­ ate students should be involved in each of the decision­ making matters. Section II of the instrument consists of fourteen statements reflecting upon undergraduate students' qualifi­ cations (or lack thereof) to participate in personnel or curriculum-related matters, and ten statements having to do with the faculty's role in the same matters. Respondents are asked to indicate by means of a five-item Likert-type scale, the extent to which they agree with each of the expressed statements. 27 The third section of the instrument is made up of twenty-eight statements describing possible conditions or consequences resulting from "an agreed-upon number of under­ graduates 'being given' voting privileges on departmental, college, and all-university decision-making bodies consid­ ering faculty personnel and curriculum-related matters." Again, the respondents are asked to mark one of the five response alternatives indicating the extent to which they feel the condition described was likely to occur as a result of such undergraduate student involvement. An analysis of variance for repeated measures design will be applied to group mean scores so as to determine the significance of differences between the group means. In the event group means are found to be significantly different statistically, a Scheffe Post Hoo comparison technique will be employed to determine in which ways the groups differ. All statistical treatment will be done through the CDC 3600 computer in the MSU Computer Center. Limitations of the Study This study is limited by conceivable deficiencies accompanying the use of any "self-report" instrument or questionnaire (see Appendix D ) . Concerns about the instru­ ment itself, such as its reliability, validity, and encour­ agement of response-set bias, are particularly pronounced with the use of a newly constructed, previously untested instrument. A reading of Chapter IV will acquaint the 28 reader with this author's efforts to combat potential limi­ tations of this nature, including the pretesting of the instrument, extensive discussion with representatives of the populations being studied, and assistance from authorities in the field of questionnaire design and survey research. Securing the cooperation of the respondents in completing and returning the instrument is another paramount concern of the researcher. Receiving an adequate percentage of usable responses from the samples in this study could be affected by the uniqueness of the population from which the participants are selected. As Martin Trow warns, teachers and administrators tend to be resentful and suspicious of survey methods because of the "structured questions about complicated issues, the forced choices among limited alter­ natives, above all the sense that they are being studied rather than consulted, through methods that appear to them mechanical and stereotyped" (199:350-1). These possible obstacles place high priority on questionnaire construction, perceived relevancy and importance of the issue being exam­ ined, and the nature of the contacts with the respondents, both initially and with appropriate follow-up procedures. Significance of the Study Survey research is probably best adapted to obtaining personal and social facts, beliefs, and attitudes. It is significant that, although hundreds of thousands of words are spoken and written about education and about what people presumably think about education, there is little dependable information on the subject. 29 We simply do not know what people's attitudes toward education are. We have to depend on feature writers and so-called experts for this information (89:406). This passage, expressed by a noted educational researcher, focuses on the fundamental reason for attempting a study of this nature. Because of the significance of the issue of undergraduate students' role in institutional gov­ ernance, and because dependable information relative to educators' opinions about this issue is lacking, it is hoped this study will provide data which will facilitate our under­ standing of this complex concern. The study should provide an institutional perspective of comparative opinions held by Michigan State University faculty and administrators, and discover which population groups have common opinions. Lundberg claims the latter goal as "necessary to describe, explain, predict, and control the behavior of that group" (100:214). Equally important, however, is the desire to con­ tribute to a general body of knowledge which will serve as a foundation for further research. As Sax has suggested, exploratory investigations are useful because "they may help point out relevant and irrelevant variables that can later be used in experiments to test causal hypotheses" (164:294). This study can add to the developing theory insofar as it clearly distinguishes between particular academic decision­ making matters (i.e., faculty personnel and curriculum- related concerns), further delineates these matters into questions having to do with general policy determination as 30 opposed to acting upon specific personnel or curriculum matters, examines three issues thought to be important in perceptions of the students' role in governance proceedings (i.e., whether undergraduates are qualified to be involved, the roles of faculty, and the anticipated results of student involvement), and differentiates between populations often treated "in toto" in previous studies. Ultimately, the reader will have the obligation to determine whether the results of this investigation can be generalizable to his particular campus setting. This study could, at least, serve as a model for similar examinations at other institutions. Definition of Terms Academic administrators (or administrators)— those persons serving in positions as directors of residence instruction, department chairmen or acting depart­ ment chairmen, and deans, associate deans or assistant deans of Michigan State University colleges. Academic Council— that MSU faculty body which "engages in the extended debate and discussion which necessarily must precede action on important matters of educa­ tional policy" and is composed of "elected repre­ sentatives from each college, the deans of the sev­ eral colleges, the members of the Steering Committee of the Faculty, and certain officers of the central administration" (from This Is Michigan State Univer­ sity; 1969 Facts Bo ok , p. 34). Academic decision-making matters— those matters which per­ tain directly to the ongoing intellectual functions or purposes of the university, and which most fre­ quently occur within formal university, college, or departmental settings. These include policies and practices having to do with personnel, curriculum, or degree requirements. 31 Academic governance— those procedures used in a university, college, or departmental organization setting in which policies and practices regarding academic matters are discussed, alternatives are identified, and priorities for action or inaction are estab­ lished. This includes the utilization of various university, college, or departmental committees, councils, or senates. Academic Senate— that MSU faculty body in which the "authority of the University faculty is vested," consists of "individuals holding the rank of Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor, appointed subject to the rules of tenure, the Deans of the colleges, the President, the Provost, and all other administrative officers holding academic rank" (from This Is Michigan State University: 1969 Facts B o o k , p. 34). College Groups— three study samples of faculty members and academic administrators affiliated with Liberal A r t s , Natural Science, or Social Science colleges and departments at Michigan State University. Curriculum (or curriculum-related) m a t ters— those academic decision-making matters pertaining exclusively to formalized course offerings and undergraduate degree programs at Michigan State University. These include both general curriculum matters having reference to establishing overall policies or guide­ lines in curriculum areas and specific curriculum matters or those having to do with individual courses or degree programs. Faculty Status Groups— three study samples of non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators at Michigan State University. Liberal Arts college group— the College of Liberal Arts, Justin Morrill College, the department of American Thought and Language, and the department of Humanities in the University College at Michigan State University. Natural Science college group— the colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Engineering, Human Medicine, Natural Science, Veterinary Medicine, Lyman Briggs College, and the University College department of Natural Science at Michigan State University. Non-tenured faculty— those members of the regular faculty at Michigan State University affiliated with an 32 academic department and college, serving in nonadministrative capacities, and who have not attained tenure status. Personnel (or faculty personnel) matters— those academic decision-making matters pertaining exclusively to the status of faculty members and academic administrators at Michigan State University. These include both general personnel matters having refer­ ence to establishing overall policies or guidelines for appointing, promoting and evaluating such personnel, and specific personnel matters having to do with appointing, promoting, and evaluating of individual faculty and administrators. Social Science college group— the colleges of Business, Communication Arts, Education, Human Ecology, Social Science, James Madison College, and the University College department of Social Science at Michigan State University. Student involvement (or participation)— the practice of allowing students an opportunity to express their opinions about academic matters in formal university, college, or departmental decision-making settings. Tenured faculty— those members of the regular faculty at Michigan State University affiliated with an academic department or college, serving in non-administrative capacities, and who have attained tenure status. Overview For the purpose of convenience and systematic pre­ sentation, this study is reported in six chapters. In Chapter I, the problem is introduced and explanations are offered regarding the need and importance, purpose and objectives, general design, the study. limitations and significance of A review of related literature and research com­ prises Chapter II. A historical perspective on the attention focused upon the issue of student involvement in academic governance at Michigan State University is presented in 33 Chapter III, as is a review of several related research studies. Chapter IV consists of a description of the research design, instrumentation, and techniques used in the study. Analysis of the data and findings in the study are offered in Chapter V, with a summary of the findings, conclusions, discussion, and recommendations being pre­ sented in the concluding Chapter V I . CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction As pointed out in the previous chapter, there is a wealth of opinion expressed in recent literature about the general issue of student involvement in university gover­ nance functions. Much of that attention is focused on the more specific question of the undergraduate student's decision-making role in "academic" affairs. Since the need for empirical studies of this nature stems partially from the frustration associated with trying to sift through a collection of opinions and determine its applicability to a particular campus setting, one would be remiss in not providing a minimal introduction to such rhetoric, along with a synopsis of the appropriate research. Consequently, the initial section of this chapter will provide an examina­ tion of the "impression and opinions of individual commenta­ tors" (as Wilson puts it) and will be followed by a review of related research efforts. Related Literature Much to the distress of those who think otherwise, it is apparent that there are no easy answers to many 34 35 problems confronting today's college and university campuses. This state of affairs is obvious when trying to incorporate the views of various campus constituencies into a viable governance structure. Some observers object to even consid­ ering specific decision-making roles until a set of goals or objectives for educational institutions are created and accepted (63, 186, 209, 210). Others claim that the concept of authoritarian responsibility must be replaced by educa­ tional leadership on boards of trustees within the administration faculties (72, 143, 165), (24, 56, 102, 207), and among (17, 70, 98, 146). And many suggest that entirely new and different forms of government are needed to cope with the new expectations of youth and increasing dependence upon knowledge (30), to overcome "paternalistic administra­ tive attitudes . . . and an acquiescent faculty" (170:275), or to develop more cooperative, mutual relationships (22, 204, 206). The question concerning appropriate governance models has always generated considerable controversy, and the issue of increased student involvement in policy-making has made the task of developing such structures all the more complex. One author who conducted an extensive study of the students' role in governing functions more than a decade ago opined that "no precise rationale for student participation has gained universal acceptance by educators" (101:4). Although many institutions have introduced students into various decision-making roles, general agreement as to 36 whether students should be allowed a share in policy-making responsibilities is still relatively rare. A Harvard Uni­ versity government professor claimed, for example, that "the key question of institutional reform remains— participation in and for what?" (77:179). Yale President Kingman Brewster, in expressing his concern about how far student involvement should go and how democratic should the selection of student representatives be, raised an equally substantive question when he asked: "... will the place be better or worse in terms of the student's own interest in the quality of his education if the responsibility for its direction is assumed by student representatives or if it resides primarily with the faculty and administration?" (19:1). The arguments against students having greater decision-making authority in academic affairs are numerous. Some criticisms reflect the idea that students are not qualified to be involved immature (92, 97, 113), that they are too (31), that they lack experience, continuity, and responsibility (68), or that they would be intent on alter­ ing institutional goals (12, 98, 162, 186). Others feel that academic matters are "primarily" faculty concerns (17, 24, 60, 65, 68) and that students should be content with involvement in such matters as discipline and rules 114), "in loco parentis" (68, 76). (26, (148), or other "student affairs" Another set of opinions express concern about possible inefficiency or detrimental consequences accompany­ ing student involvement--i.e ., prolonging decisions and 37 wasting time (17, 94), block-protesting, too many conflict­ ing interest groups, overreaction on some issues, or further polarization of opinions (144). McGrath offered the follow­ ing as principle concerns of those opposed to student par­ ticipation: the balance of power in important academic bodies shifting from boards, administrators, and faculty to the students; the immaturity of students; the relatively brief period of time students spend on campus and, conse­ quently, a limited perspective or commitment to long-term policies as opposed to immediate concerns; student ignorance of professional values, knowledge, and skills needed to make these decisions; and the time and effort of participation interfering with their studies and gainful employment (110: 60-66) . On the other hand, proponents of student involvement in governing affairs argue that students are deeply con­ cerned about the educational enterprise and what is taught (76, 94), that increased sophistication, sensitivity and knowledge does qualify them to participate (67, 74, 110), and that their unique perspective on the character and con­ tent of instruction could improve higher education (68, 110). Other perceived benefits include answering to student charges of irrelevancy (50), making students less vulnerable to the violence-prone campus element the students' (76, 80), developing creative leadership and citizenship skills (94), encouraging constructive student action and under­ standing of complex educational issues (152), offering 38 protection to students' freedom of inquiry strating respect for their opinions (174). (10), and demon­ Another group of commentators anticipate positive results of shared decision­ making responsibilities in the form of greater institutional efficiency, better communication or closer cooperation and respect among diverse campus factions (34, 86, 206, 209), eliminating the fear of student power (208) , improving the behavior of faculty members in policy-making sessions (195), and facilitating the implementation of policies and regula­ tions (92) . The controversy was exemplified in a series of articles recently published by two well-known American educators— Harold Taylor and Sidney Hook. Referring to students as the "foundation of the university" and as the "greatest allies" to combat ignorance, force, and violence, Taylor claimed that "education of students means nothing less than their personal involvement in the conduct of the affairs of the mind . . . equality of position in the polity of the community is a necessary condition of their involve­ ment" (188:67). The former president of Sarah Lawrence College described that institution's practice of no grades or exams, no required courses, no faculty ranks, no formal departments, and its program of involving students in for­ mulating college policy, reporting on the curriculum, and consulting on faculty appointments, as "better than any other system of university or college organization in America or anywhere else" (188:66). The reasons for this, 39 according to Taylor, are because "it involves students in the decisions which affect their own lives, . . . sets up conditions for the release of creative energy, students access to new ideas, . . . gives . . . and develops a loyalty to their own community standards and to those values in which educated men and women can believe" (188:66). In calling Taylor's proposals for greater student participation "fundamentally confused" and likely to gener­ ate "mischievous consequences," Dr. Hook cautioned about not carefully distinguishing between "highly desirable" consul­ tation and the act of decision, the latter of which should ultimately rest with the faculty by virtue of "logic of subject matter" and "objective standards of validity and achievement" (79:69). Professor Hook criticized Dr. Taylor for equating the "immature judgement of students . . . with the seasoned judgement of their teachers who have initiated and observed the consequences of curricular changes," and suggested that Taylor's university would be a "predominantly political institution, torn apart by struggles time to speculate but only confront" . . . with no (79:70). Dr. Taylor concurred that he, too, would like to have most of the things Hook desires, including freedom of thought and expression for students and faculty, freedom from acts of violence, intelligent discussions and the use of democratic means to resolve problems, but also "a good deal more." the students' In opting for an education that would "change lives" and provide opportunities for them to 40 "become part of the community in which the quality of their lives is enhanced by direct involvement in planning and carrying out their own education," Taylor advanced the following position: If the decision as to "what is learned, the proper order of learning, the criteria of mas­ tery, and other related intellectual matters must ultimately be made by the faculty," then I must point out that that is what has been happening all along and that is a major source of the student protest movement. The faculty have too often been wrong, while remaining impervious to criticism, and their notions of what is to be learned, the proper order, and the criteria of mastery have been so parochial and so lacking in educational imagination that a new generation of students, no longer depen­ dent on the academic profession as a single source of cultural and intellectual insight, has constructed its own criteria to measure the content and quality of the life and the educa­ tion it is being offered. Students are not sufficiently answered by being told they are ignorant and immature. They are ignorant in some things, knowledgeable in others; one of the things they are knowledgeable about is their own education, their own interests, and to an unusual degree among some of them, their own society and their own culture. In the kind of university I am arguing for, the knowledge they bring and the intellectual interest they share would be welcomed and put to full use (187:197). Acknowledging that students "should always be con­ sulted" on matters of curriculum and faculty tenure, Dr. Hook condemned the idea of permitting students to dictate who their teachers would be and what they are to be taught as risking "replacement of the faculty by a shouting mob of boys and girls" (78:197). In interpreting Taylor's remarks as not offering any safeguards against such "shouting mobs," Hook repeatedly referred to the ill effects of a "curriculum' 41 of confrontation" characterized by continuous conflict, even if tactics were less violent than the bombs, threats, and intimidation witnessed, for example, at San Francisco State (78:197). Beyond that, he claimed Taylor "outrages common sense" with the contention that force should never be used to defend against violence on the campus. Envisioning the possibility of the university being "indefinitely shut down by any group of extremists prepared to use clubs, guns, knives, and arson to impose its will," Dr. Hook asked why his adversary wishes to "deprive the majority of students and teachers of their freedom to attend class" (78:198). These very cogent testimonials, along with those presented in the previous chapter as indications of the crucial nature of this issue, evidence the depth and in­ tensity of feelings about who should be involved in campus decision-making functions. Furthermore, those who argue that most educators are basically committed to allowing greater student participation and that the only questions yet to be answered are "in what matters?" and "how much influence should they have?" are oversimplifying the issue somewhat. It is conceivable, for example, that some compro­ mise between students having a "consulting" role as opposed to an "equal status with faculty" function in certain decision-making matters might sufficiently resolve the Hook/ Taylor-type of conflict to allow the mechanics of campus governance to proceed. Prior to arriving at that stage, however, relative agreement may have to be reached regarding 42 the qualifications of students to be involved, the roles and responsibilities of faculty members in such matters, and the beneficial effects of such action upon the students, the faculty, and the institution. Identifying and articulating complementary opinions on these substantive concerns may be more difficult. It is clear, also, that the question of student involvement is much too complex to be examined from a broad "university" or "academic" governance perspective. Though many arguments persist over concepts of student qualifica­ tions, faculty or administrator roles, and perceived con­ sequences of redefined responsibilities, objections or endorsements are often directed at participation in specific decision-making matters. The same commentators may feel differently about students being involved in various issues. Addressing oneself to specific matters also reduces the problem of trying to generalize from expressions concerning ill-defined "academic" or "university" affairs. The particular academic decision-making issues focused upon in this study are those identified as "per­ sonnel" and as "curriculum" matters. Personal opinions relative to these specific questions are no less diverse. Regarding the latter, for example, Howard Bowen noted that course content, setting degree requirements, deciding research tasks, and selecting equipment and books are "primarily matters for faculty decision" (17:181). Lewis Mayhew reflected that suggestions urging a major role for students in academic governance are based upon the false premise— "that students can plan, with reasonable awareness of outcomes, the essential professional service they receive from the college and university." He illustrated his point by asking "whether freshmen medical students have the back­ ground to plan courses in surgery, or business students to plan their work in accounting, or students in physical or biological sciences to plan sequences of work in physics or bioengineering?"(108:78). mented: Two government professors com­ "If students could be relied upon to know what it takes to be an educated person, they would not have to be students" (97:281). Although conceding that students should have opportunities to "influence" faculty decisions, Dr. Fred Kerlinger advised that students should not have equal debating and voting privileges in course content, educa­ tional programs, curriculum, and admissions requirements because they have no substantive and experiential competence in these matters, and because the transient nature of the student population prohibits them from accepting responsi­ bility for such decisions (90). The idea of students being involved in faculty personnel decisions is equally, if not even more, alien to many educators. The questions of faculty academic freedom (including the right to be judged solely by one's profes­ sional peers) and the relative lack of student competences in such matters serve as building blocks for many criticisms. The claim was made by Charles Frankel, for example, that the most important reason why students should not be involved in selection and promotion of faculty is because it would be incompatible with the concept of academic freedom. Since students see teachers only in one context, they cannot make informed judgments about either the information presented or other contributions to teaching. Besides that, Frankel added, good teaching is not simply a matter of majority vote (57). Referring to the expertise inherent in advancing the purpose of the institution, prerogatives of qualified "scholar-teachers" to judge their peers, and the "obvious impossibility" of students to evaluate criteria other than classroom performance (i.e., faculty research and publica­ tions) , Lewy and Rothman saw "no reason why these same principles of academic freedom should now be compromised or surrendered to students whose competence to decide questions of educational policy or academic personnel is no greater than that of earlier challengers of academic freedom" (97: 280) . One section of the 1966 "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" endorsed jointly by the A A U P , the American Council on Education, and the Association of Govern­ ing Boards of Universities and Colleges, reads: "Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty respon­ sibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal" (179). ment should be controlling It was said that faculty judg­ (except in "rare instances" and 45 for "compelling reasons") because of the assumption that "scholars in a particular field or activity have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues. (39:2). . Whether the AAUP stance has or has not been modi­ fied remains to be seen, in light of the recent Committee T statement noting "their [students] opinions should be weighed in faculty decisions affecting faculty status" (37:34). Nonetheless, there are many who insist that per­ sonnel decisions should remain primarily, if not exclusively, within the domain of faculty concern (19, 90, 103, 104). Within the swelling ranks of those unopposed to student participation in curriculum and/or personnel matters, the question of how much influence students should have remains unanswered. Not everyone agrees with Edward Eddy in his belief that "every college and university committee ought to include voting student members" (208:953) or with Keyes' suggestion that students be given "real votes on real issues" (92:80). The latter argued that the brief tenure of students in committee work could serve as a corrective to entrenched campus thinking and their mere presence seems to improve faculty manners and encourages concise, pertinent comments. Eddy claimed the only reason for not allowing students to have voting privileges is the fear of "student power" and calls that emotion "groundless" (208:953). In dismissing the idea that the present pressures are indica­ tive of a "few students wanting control," Edmond Hallberg defined the national movement as "an attitude inbred in the 46 majority of undergraduates that they can contribute to the academic traditions and make fundamental judgements about curriculum and personnel. Indeed students can and should" (68:538). An increasing number of observers favor some form of "shared responsibility" between students and other campus representatives (36, 68, 82, 144) or offering students at least a "voice" in these specific decision-making matters (50, 94, 99, 181, 195). Paul Woodring commented that stu­ dents should be heard when faculty promotions are being considered (though they shouldn't have the majority vote) because they are better judges of good teaching than are administrators or faculty (19 5). Some feel students are sufficiently qualified to participate in such matters in that they have unique, fresh, creative ideas to contribute (68, 195), are concerned about their education and inter­ ested in participating (59, 67, 152), and are not committed to serving the system at any cost (75) . Others claim that no single group has all the answers or should have absolute control over these issues (82, 177) and that more coopera­ tion and mutual understanding is needed relative to these critical concerns disinterest (22, 83, 206, 210). Perceived faculty (70) or reluctance to change pedagogical expertise among faculty (98, 109), limited (17), diminishing importance and esteem associated with administrative and faculty roles (36), combating external threats to the free­ dom of the university to determine its own goals (11), and 47 a redistribution of "power" among campus constituencies (14, 91, 204) are other rationales employed to justify increased student involvement in specific governance matters. Related Research It would be erroneous to assume that serious efforts to involve students in university decision-making processes have occurred only in response to disturbances on American campuses during the 1960's. As a matter of fact, students at some institutions have participated in establishing academic standards, curriculum planning and evaluation, discipline cases involving cheating, and even selection and promotion of faculty and administrators, for several decades. As early as 1952, for example, one researcher cited examples demonstrating it was "not uncommon" for joint student-facuity committees to discuss and recommend changes in academic stan­ dards, including evaluation of the total curriculum and sug­ gestions for course content (53:72-77). Another cited a U.S. National Student Association research study of 1955 which claimed that 154 of the 424 deans responding felt stu­ dents have a contribution to make in curriculum-planning, and more than one in seven student government leaders reported the existence of student curriculum committees on their campuses (101). Despite occasional exceptions, however, Lunn concluded that "formal student representation on faculty cur­ riculum committees is rare" (101:73), and "a student voice in appointment or dismissal of personnel is uncommon" (101:35). 48 Several recent surveys give rise to the belief that a strong trend toward greater student involvement in insti­ tutional government is developing. One study, conducted by the National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges, listed more than 400 examples of student participation in policy making. The most common type of involvement was on university-wide committees dealing with student affairs (frequently with v o t e ) , while 43 of the 90 responding schools noted students were on "search and screen­ ing committees for high administrative officers," 36 reported students on ad hoc committees doing long-range planning, evaluation, or "self-studies," 25 had students on faculty or university senates (many added in the last y e ar ), and 9 said students were on their governing board. Only six institutions allowed students on decision-making bodies within the academic department (158). Two other general surveys called attention to colleges or universities where students are involved in selecting college deans, presidents, vice-presidents, and chancellors; advisory committees or cabinets of presidents; university senates or all-university councils; and various faculty and administrative committees (185, 201). One report stated that more than 200 institu­ tions have students or recent graduates on their boards of control, and boldly asserted: "Everyone agrees that the next 10 years will see the expansion of student participa­ tion in all aspects of campus life" (195:12). 49 There is a very real danger in interpreting such reports as evidence that faculty members and administrators are becoming more receptive to students being involved in academic decision-making, particularly in curriculum or personnel matters. In addition to the somewhat sketchy methodological techniques employed (the latter report, for example, consisted of a modest review of public statements by educators and public figures), the question arises as to whether students are in positions where their opinions could have a constructive, influential effect on institutional policies and practices. Earl McGrath has indicated that, despite the trends* toward greater student participation since World War II, the tendency has been to "reduce, rather than increase, the influence of students ... in the bodies concerned with basic educational issues" (110:45). The "social trends" he identified as limiting student influence included increased size of schools resulting in mass, impersonalized environments, students being caught in a "seller's market" replete with pressures to go to college and faculty threats of dismissal or failure, and a growing acceptance among faculty of a "collegial" theory of academic government in which voting power is distributed among members of the *Receiving 875 questionnaire responses from colleges and universities, McGrath reported 88.3 percent of the insti­ tutions included students on one or more faculty committees, 57.8 percent had students on faculty curriculum committees (46.1 percent with students having voting privileges), and 4.7 percent approved of students on faculty selection, pro­ motion, and tenure committee (3.3 percent granting votes to student members) (110:106). 50 "collegium." Referring to this model of governance as "the syndicalism of the professional" (110:49), McGrath argued that it "leaves basic institutional policy in the hands of a corpus of professionals who, like all other human beings are largely moved by self-interests. . . . They assume stu­ dents should retain their traditional role of mere clients" (110:48). Antioch's Though conceding that a governance model akin to (with its powerful student element) is impractical at all schools, McGrath asserted that the "primary reason" why similar practices haven't spread is because "constituent governing groups are satisfied with what they have and fear that their autonomy will be divided or destroyed if they share it with students" (110:28). In light of these comments, it is somewhat surpris­ ing to learn of McGrath's contention that the question of whether students should participate is now "academic," and that the critical issues to be resolved are of a procedural nature (i.e., how, to what extent, and in what manner will students be involved). Asserting that students have a "fateful stake" in the quality of their education and a "clear right to a formalized voice in the policies and prac­ tices of colleges and universities" noted: (110:70), he further "Thoughtful observers of the present breakdown in the traditional conditions in academic life . . . exhibit a considerable consensus that students must play an influ­ ential role in the revision of . . . prevailing academic policies and practices" (110:71). Surely, one might 51 question the extent to which "considerable consensus" could be reached between these "thoughtful observers" and the "constituent governing groups" or the "corpus of profes­ sionals" referred to earlier. While his study results may reflect some degree of consensus regarding student involve­ ment in selected matters (e.g., curriculum issues), the fact that a very small percentage of institutions provided oppor­ tunities for student participation in personnel matters reveals something less than a consensus favoring an influ­ ential student role in such affairs. One section in a different study exhibiting curious results asked more than 2,000 student leaders, administra­ tors, faculty, and trustees to respond to the following statement: "Students will serve as voting members on most important academic committees on the typical campus" (24). The author reported that three-fifths of the faculty and administrators perceived such a situation as "certain or very likely," and "two out of three administrators— and a slightly higher proportion of faculty--believe this develop­ ment is desirable or essential" (24:278). Is it logical to assume from this study that most "administrators" anticipate students will eventually have voting privileges on college committees that establish degree requirements? Do these results mean that two-thirds of the college and university faculty members feel it desirable to have students casting votes on whether or not to award tenure to an assistant pro­ fessor in his department? Unfortunately, the data presented 52 does not provide guidelines as to the responsibilities of the "important academic committees." Beyond the questions of whether students do or will participate is one which is more directly related to this treatise--whether students should be involved in various decision-making matters, and particularly those related to curriculum and personnel issues. In a rather extensive study of opinions held mid-1960's) (in the concerning perceived and preferred goals for higher education, Gross and Grambsch reported that students seeking a greater share of decision-making power would not receive much support for such a movement from faculty or administrators (65:33). In fact, the authors did not per­ ceive a strong feeling that faculty should be involved either (65:31). Using a modified form of the Gross-Grambsch ques­ tionnaire, the Danforth Foundation found "significant agree­ ment" among administrators, faculty, and students at 14 private liberal arts colleges "on most matters relating to college goals and governance." opinion noted, however, were: Among other differences of "students see less present willingness on the part of the college to institute major changes than do faculty and administrators," and they "desire greater involvement in the governing process than that advocated for them by administrators and faculty" (10:3). The responses to "involve students in college government" showed both administrators and faculty thinking students are 53 considerably more "involved" in "college government" than they should be (10:7-8). Once again, these studies do not help identify particular matters in which educators feel students should be able to participate. An earlier section of this chapter made reference to the fact that formal student participation in some form of university governance is not a new phenomenon. Not surpris­ ingly, then, a 1959 study of 109 institutions affiliated with the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (24) found each school offering students a voice through at least one of the following channels: government organizations, joint councils or administrators), student committees tion) , or joint committees. however, student (with faculty and/ (parallel organiza­ It is significant to note, the types of issues which students could influence through these channels. dent councils" Most discussions in various "stu­ (this channel was reported existing in 93.5 percent of the institutions) centered around social activ­ ities, finance of student activities, student handbook, orientation and recruiting of new students, public relations with the community, and the college calendar. One-third, or fewer, of the student councils incorporated "traditional faculty or administrative" concerns into their agenda (e.g., curriculum planning and evaluation, instructional evaluation, academic discipline or regulations, or fiscal policies and procedures). A similar pattern developed at 26.5 percent of the schools reporting the use of "student 54 committees"--social activities was thought to be the only appropriate concern in 67 percent of these settings, with the remaining one-third giving modest attention to issues like curriculum planning and evaluation, academic disci­ pline, and attendance policies. Slightly more than one- third of the colleges allowed students to participate on "joint councils," with less than 40 percent of those coun­ cils involved with any academic concerns. While more than half provided opportunities for student membership on "joint committees," 67 percent of the schools suggested discussions about social activities were most appropriate in this type of setting, and the remaining were concerned with academic regulations, curriculum and instructor evaluation, or aca­ demic discipline policies. More of the institutions responding in the Carr study listed "favorable effects" resulting from the de­ scribed student involvement than listed "unfavorable i effects." Among those comments in the former category were references to improved institutional morale, more mutual understanding, and better "college spirit." Unfavorable effects noted by the author included remarks about student immaturity, irresponsibility, and demand for excessive authority. One can only wonder if favorable responses would have been as evident had students been more involved in cur­ ricular or personnel matters. Additional research leads one to believe that edu­ cators are still very hesitant to encourage student 55 participation in certain academic issues. In interviews with more than 900 students, faculty, administrators, department chairmen, and trustees at 19 selected campuses, Harold Hodgkinson found less acceptance among faculty and administrators toward student participation in faculty ten­ ure, promotion, and curriculum decisions than in any other academic matters. At some institutions, students were not involved in any governance function; other respondents (faculty or administrators) felt students on their campus had been given more responsibility than they were willing to accept; and some reportedly favored student involvement because it would produce better decisions in certain areas, or it would "take the heat off" themselves (73). A study of Berkeley faculty members found only 9 percent agreeing that students should have an equal vote in the formulation of academic policies, whereas 4 5 percent said students should have equal voting power in social affairs committees and more than 20 percent felt students should have exclusive responsibility for social activities (196, Wilson and Gaff study). The same study found younger faculty members no more responsive to the idea of student participation in the designated areas than older faculty. Another study demonstrated that faculty members seem less interested in participating in the governing aspects of matters further removed from "academic" concerns (39). After interviewing 20 percent of the faculty at a large midwestern university, Dykes claimed that 86 percent felt 56 decisions in "academic affairs" (e.g., degree requirements, curriculum, admission requirements, and academic standards) should "usually" be determined by the faculty. Although less emphatically asserted, 70 percent also agreed that faculty wishes should usually be the controlling factor in personnel decisions and tenure). (appointments, promotions, dismissals, The faculty sample felt they should be con­ sulted for recommendations in financial affairs and capital improvements, but only 11 percent reported faculty influence should be decisive in the former area, while 21 percent felt they should have the determining voice in capital improve­ ments. The author said they exhibited "traditional indif­ ference" to public and alumni affairs, while involvement in governance of student affairs also assumed a low priority (despite the attitude expressed by 24 percent who felt they should have a strong influence in this matte r) . Dykes con­ cluded that, even though some doubt the justice and equity of their colleagues (noting that strong "vested interests" may interfere in decisions), and some question faculty competence and willingness to participate, their "sense of suspicion" of having decisions made without their voice being heard causes a reluctance to accord others the right to assume principle responsibility for decision-making (39). The study by Dykes was not designed to elicit reac­ tions from faculty to the specific issue of student involve­ ment in governance functions. Nonetheless, it does provide some insight into possible explanations, and the scope, of 57 the controversy. A recently published report of the NASPA Division of Research and Program Development provides some­ what complementary information, but with reference to roles of various members in the campus community (38). Dr. Thomas Dutton and his colleagues sent questionnaires to the pres­ idents, Deans of Students, office holders in faculty senates, student body presidents and student editors of 715 NASPAaffiliated institutions. Though the entire report is worthy of careful scrutiny, the section having to do with campus governance is most relevant to this dissertation. Once again, responding faculty acknowledged that they should be the ones to assume primary responsibility for decision-making in academic matters (i.e., curriculum design, grading practices, and academic standing). There was a tendency for faculty to approve some participation for students and administrators in curriculum design, but less enthusiasm was expressed for their involvement in the two other matters. Less than one-third of the Deans agreed, while students supported the idea of joint involvement in all three of the academic issues. A similar pattern was observed in responses to "employment and retention of fac­ ulty and staff" and the matter of institutional budget, although both faculty and presidents advocated no student involvement in these areas. (Incidentally, presidents tended to agree with faculty on the first issue as well.) Faculty and presidents felt there should be "joint partici­ pation in decisions regarding parietal rules (i.e., 58 determining women's hours, visitation, and alcohol policies) Deans and students opted for "primarily student voice" in the hours and visitation issues. All groups felt students should be afforded primary responsibility for student activ­ ities other than "student publications," in which joint responsibility was strongly urged by faculty and adminis­ trators. Regarding "academic dishonesty problems," having no students involved was preferred by administrators and faculty (38:17). The reasons which caused the divergent views were cited as related to Deans and students feeling that students are ready and capable of contributing to "more insightful" decisions, while faculty and presidents were said to be less convinced of the students' ipate (38:14). "maturity and ability" to partic­ In response to this situation, the authors offered the following provocative thoughts: When there are conflicting views regarding the values and degree of student involvement, it should not be surprising that students on the one hand and faculty and administrators on the other have difficulty seeing eye to eye on the means of governance. In part, conflict over governance stems from the institution's view of the student. Is he seen as a mature, responsi­ ble person with the ability to participate on equal terms with others or as a learner who is in the process of developing and growing in capacity to make wise judgments? The latter view would seem to be the most prevalent posi­ tion today. As long as this conception is held, governance will be a source of tension in higher education. But, in the face of such tension, should an institution attempt to create a model of governance in which students play an equal or significant role with faculty and staff in a substantial number of important decision-making areas? Would it be of benefit to the institution 59 and the student to move in this direction? Would it strengthen the learning process and the quality of policy development and human inter-action? Responses to such questions should help institutions to clarify the con­ ceptual bases of governance and to evolve structures that are more consistent with edu­ cational philosophy and objectives (38:29). One attempt to survey attitudes on a single campus was made by Frank Masingill at Louisiana State University at New Orleans (104). Almost half of the faculty and admin­ istrators responding to the mailed questionnaire perceived definite advantages in providing students with opportunities to participate in various decision-making responsibilities. Favorable impressions seemed to center on several themes: producing "greater institutional efficiency," "better com­ munications," a "sounding board," "facilitating maturational development," "pacifying" irresponsible behavior, and creat­ ing "fair-democratic" procedures. Faculty and students tended to agree that students should have minority status in governing functions pertaining to fiscal affairs, equal status on cultural and discipline committees, and majority status in student affairs. General agreement was found among the total sample for one-third student representation on such matters as evaluation of grading procedures, in­ struction evaluation, course and curriculum planning, aca­ demic standards, and other "non-academic" concerns. There was substantial agreement for greater student participation in developing speaker policies, handbook and calendar, housing committees, and student publications. Whereas students were desirous of some minority participation on I 60 committees involved with faculty recruitment and termina­ tions, faculty policies, faculty council, administrative council, or academic deans group meetings, administrators rejected the ideas analysis reflected: faculty and (104:41). The profile (a) higher ranking faculty members were not significantly more liberal in their attitudes than others, except in the College of Liberal Arts, and (b) atti­ tudes were not significantly affected by either the extent of faculty involvement in extra-class institutional activ­ ities when they were undergraduates, or their experience with joint student-facuity committee work (104:41). Several institutional reports have reflected upon perceived advantages, albeit in a very general fashion, to granting students decision-making responsibilities in cer­ tain matters. For example, a study commission at Cornell suggested that it is important to build a relationship of trust between the student and the university in matters of student misconduct, and attempts should be made to "promote student freedom and responsibility" (172). A similar com­ mission at Temple University advised that students should participate in those areas of responsibility which are of particular concern to them (196), while the rationale for allowing a student-initiated experimental college to be introduced at Brown University was "to give students a role to play," "develop closer relations with faculty," and because "student development is as important as intellectual development" (182). 61 Although the bulk of the research indicates a reluctance on the part of faculty and administrators to having students participate in making personnel and curriculum-related decisions, proponents of greater student involvement can be heartened by a recent study of the American Council on Education (26). Following an eight- month investigation, the ACE's Special Committee on Campus Tensions reported its recommendations and conclusions from an analysis of questionnaire responses and interviews with students, faculty, administrators, and trustees throughout the United States. Among other things, the report suggested that students should be assigned "real responsibilities to the extent of their capabilities and willingness to assume responsibility"; they should have "substantial autonomy" in nonacademic activities and be allowed to "participate in matters of general educational policy, especially in cur­ ricular affairs"; their advice should be sought in matters affecting teaching (e.g., new faculty appointments, tenure awards, new courses, departments, or interdisciplinary arrangements); . . . and that some boards may "wish to consider adding" students and faculty to their ranks. Citing "inadequate communication" as a major cause of ten­ sion, the panel noted that joint administrative-facultystudent committees may aid effective decision-making and, although some issues may be better dealt with by separate faculty, administrative, or student groups, "each group's 62 decision-making processes can benefit from inputs from the other groups" (26:8). Of particular relevance for this study are various statements which help explain why the special committee felt its recommendations are educationally sound: Since increased participation will contribute to effective institutional decision-making and is also of educational benefit, students should serve in a variety of roles on committees that make decisions or recommendations. . . . Effective student representation will not only improve the quality of decisions; it will also help to ensure their acceptability to the stu­ dent body (26:39). The faculty, by virtue of its earned competence, is in the best position to have main jurisdic­ tion over academic matters. But students, as the consumers of higher education and as young people with important perceptions about our changing society, have a right to be heard on matters affecting the educational program (26:42). Decisions made without adequate study or simply presented as faits aoaomplis not only create resentment and hostility, but also run the risk of being wrong. This is particularly true with decisions on strictly educational matters (cur­ ricular requirements, for example), where stu­ dents, faculty, and others directly affected are likely to have valuable insights to contribute (26:48). Summary The purpose of this chapter has been to present an overview of the many opinions held by educators regarding student participation in university, and particularly aca­ demic, governance functions. The review encompassed an examination of opinions expressed in educational literature 63 and in specifically related research studies. Despite publicized "trends" indicating that opportunities for stu­ dents to become involved in decision-making processes are increasing, there is considerable controversy as to whether their participation in important academic matters is in the best interest of the institution and its constituencies. Like the treatment most other critical issues in education receive, professional literature abounds with expressions of dramatically different opinions pertaining to whether, why, and how students should become more, or less, involved. Although much of the rhetoric is characterized by very general and ambiguous semantics, a review of the lit­ erature does evidence the depth and intensity of expressed opinions regarding this issue, and provides insight into some of the specific concerns around which opinions may be formulated— e. g. , perceptions of student qualifications to participate, faculty roles, or anticipated consequences of greater student involvement. By and large, research studies of educators' views toward this issue have been methodologically confusing or substantively unproductive. Very little has been examined beyond the types of broad policy matters in which students might become involved or the "channels" through which the student's voice may be exercised in governing affairs. From studies concerned with specific matters it appears that fac­ ulty members are reluctant to grant a significant decision­ making role to students in faculty personnel matters and, 64 to a lesser extent, curriculum-related issues, but seem more receptive to their becoming involved in policies outside of the "academic" realm. Information relative to the opinions of academic administrators is very sparse because most studies pool deans and department chairmen in with repre­ sentatives of other administrative ranks. Consequently, it is difficult to determine if their views differ from those of faculty members tors) . (or, for that matter, other administra­ And despite evidence of widespread differences of opinion, researchers' concern about possible differences within or between faculty and administrator populations has been minimal. CHAPTER III STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Introduction The magnitude of actual student involvement in governance matters, and the extent to which this issue is perceived as related to the on-going functions of colleges and universities, varies from campus to campus. Students, faculty, and administrators at Michigan State University have focused considerable attention on this, and related issues, in the past several years. The purpose of this chapter is to present a modest historical description of recent occurrences which have affected the status of under­ graduates in University decision-making matters. Principle examination will be given to the development of, and reac­ tion to, four documents prepared by representatives of Michigan State University constituent groups, and to related research studies pertaining to the MSU community. Expressed views of students and student groups are presented, in addi­ tion to those of faculty and administrators, so that a more comprehensive perspective on this institution's attempt at addressing itself to the issues being studied can be appreciated. 65 66 The "Academic Freedom Report" A Federal District Court hearing (166) and a subsequent University hearing regarding the procedural due process rights of an MSU graduate student allegedly denied readmission because of his political activities, were said to have provided the impetus Academic Council (54:36) for the following (see "Definition of Terms" section, p. 30) resolution of December 7, 1965: The Academic Council recognizes the need for a comprehensive reform of the University's rules and structures dealing with the academic free­ dom of students, i.e., with the freedom of speech, press and association on the campus and with procedural due process. Such a reform has become urgent for the following reasons: a. The growth of the University and the diversification of its functions have altered the relations between students, faculty and administration; b. Changes in the outlook of students have generated new problems which must be handled by appropriate educational policies and democratic practices; and c. Existing regulations and campus institutions appear to be insufficiently coordinated and in part out of keeping with the current edu­ cational and social issues of the University (54:37). The Faculty Committee on Student Affairs accepted the respon­ sibility for initiating an examination into possible reform measures. A letter from President John Hannah offered several suggestions for study, including defining "academic freedom for students" and the University's relationship to its students, delineating appropriate regulations to enhance such a mission, establishing procedures for formulating, 67 enforcing, reviewing, and appealing those regulations, and encouraging campus-wide discussion of this issue (54:39). Faculty sub-committees, along with comparable student committees, were established to deal with student rights and responsibilities in the classroom, on and offcampus activities, judicial processes and procedures, stu­ dent records, publications, conduct, and the structure and methods for student involvement in formulating regulations at all levels. An initial report was submitted to the Academic Council in June, 1966. The Council voted to have its Steering Committee elicit opinions about the document during the summer and prepare written recommendations for consideration the next Fall term. Meetings of the Academic Council and the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs during the fall were high­ lighted by numerous recommendations offered by various com­ mittees, the President, and ASMSU governing b o d y) . (the major campus student Dr. Fedore touched upon the significant points of controversy: Thus, in the final stages of developing the Report there tended to be some area of dis­ agreement. With the students it was the article dealing with academic rights and respon­ sibilities. They contended that student partic­ ipation should be expanded in the areas of academic administration, advising, classroom conduct and course content and that the report had made little provision for such participation. On the other hand some faculty expressed con­ cerns that commitments had been made to students in this area which at some future date the Uni­ versity might find impossible to fulfill. This sentiment seemed to be expressed through the eventual inclusion of the section dealing with 68 the professional rights of the faculty. For the administration the area of greatest con­ cern had to do with the responsibilities for the management of student publications and the responsibilities and conduct of students to cover areas beyond the classroom (54:56-57). Following four days of deliberations and the addi­ tion of several amendments, the report entitled Academic Freedom For Students At Michigan State University approved by the Academic Council. (2) was Within the next two months, the document was accepted by the Academic Senate (see "Definition of Terms" section, p. 31) and the Board of Trustees. It was adopted in mid-March, 1967. The significance of this document is twofold. First of all, it outlines rather specific procedural guidelines for protecting the rights of students in, and outside, the classroom. For example, it calls for the participation of students in "formulating and revising regulations governing student conduct" (Article 1, Section 1.5.03), for "clearly defined channels and procedures for the appeal and review" of regulations and their violation (Article 1, Section 1.5.10 and Article 5), for "educationally justifiable academic regulations" and protection of specifically noted academic rights and responsibilities for students (Article 2, Sections 2.1.4.1 and 2.1.4.8), for protecting the privacy of student records (Article 3), forbids those who are not staff members to exercise "any powers of veto or censorship over news or editorial content" of the State News (Article 6), and provides elaborate procedural guidelines for all 69 judicial bodies "conducting formal hearings in disciplinary matters" (Article 4). Equally important, however, and of particular relevance to this treatise, the document attempts to formu­ late guidelines and suggestions for clarifying and enhancing relationships between faculty and students. Acknowledging the "primacy of the faculty's role and its unquestionable centrality in the educational process," the report also notes that the "responsibility to secure, respect and pro­ tect . . . appropriate conditions and opportunities for learning . . . community" is shared by all members of the academic (Article 2, Section 2.1.1). The faculty was said to have "final authority and responsibility for course con­ tent, classroom procedure and grading" (Article 2, Section 2.1.4.9), and that "the competency of a professional can be rightly judged only by professionals" 2.2.4). (Article 2, Section But reference is made to two rights distinguished by the University— a right of the students and a right of the faculty, that these rights "must be reconciled," and that they "can be reconciled only on condition that we undertake to provide a systematic channel in which students may seek remedies (for legitimate student complaints) the faculty stands ready to assist them" 2.2.7). and (Article 2, Section Toward that end, the report recommended that "those departments and colleges that lack appropriate and clearly defined channels for the receipt and consideration of stu­ dent complaints concerning the quality of instruction shall 70 establish them" (Article 2, Section 2.2.7), and that "stu­ dent recommendations concerning courses, systems of grading, methods of instruction, programs of study and other student interests in the academic area shall be referred to appro­ priate departmental and college agencies" (Article 2, Section 2.2.8.2). Fedore called the report "a new dimension in studentuniversity relations at Michigan State University" (54:59) and a dd ed : It represents the efforts of a large public university to not only take a look at the many complex problems facing students but also a willingness to work out differences in a reasoned manner and to make needed changes where and when necessary. More important it establishes pro­ cedures and guidelines so that changes can be made in an orderly fashion. Those who were greatly involved in the development of the Report look upon it in the form of a consti­ tution or articles of good faith (54:59-60). Somewhat similar language was employed by the Aca­ demic Council as it noted: "The real significance of this document, as we believe, is not that students have acquired rights, but that they have explicitly been made party to our social trust" (2, from the "Foreword"). Regardless of whether the report represented "articles of good faith" or whether students were "made a party" to the "social trust" of educators at MSU, provisions for student involvement in specific policy-making processes were not included. 71 [ The "Massey Report" | I At the November 5, 1968, meeting of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, a formal motion was approved to establish an "ad hoc committee to study the matter of student participation in the academic government of the University, notably with respect to the question of the freedom of units of the University to determine whether or not student members will be given the right to vote" (115:2). The committee's recommendations were to embrace the following ideas: number of student representatives, manner of selecting such representatives, and the capacity of such representatives officio status). (i.e., voting or non-voting ex The objective of this committee was said to be "to make recommendations which, if adopted, will assure effective and responsible participation of students in the academic decision-making processes ... at all levels, department, college, and university . . . which vitally affect, for good or ill, the life of every student who attends Michigan State University" (115, from the "Statement of Charge" to the committee). The committee, composed of eight faculty members, three undergraduates, and two graduate students, began its deliberations in January, 1969. Professor Gerald J. Massey, Department of Philosophy and chairman of the committee sent a letter to each college dean, department chairman, director, and college advisory committee chairman, soliciting opinions 72 concerning the "present role of students in the decision­ making process, their evaluations of the effectiveness and value of this participation, any plans about to be imple­ mented, and opinions concerning the role they themselves think students should play" (138:1). Although committee members were made aware of the replies as they trickled in, a systematic analysis of responses to Dr. Massey's letter was not completed and made available until late March. (A summary of the analysis will be presented later in this chapter.) The first few meetings of the "Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government" were primarily informational in nature. A survey of students on various University, college, and departmental committees provided input into such issues as positive and negative aspects of student participation, the difficulty of assessing student impact on committee work, and the way decisions are made in various campus organizational settings promotion decisions). (i.e., tenure and Included among the initial assump­ tions of the Ad Hoc group were: (1) the ideal to strive for was "the maximum degree of student participation, limited by the legitimate demands of the faculty and administration" (138:2); (2) to "avoid suggesting strict guidelines that may not be applicable . . . [due to] differences among depart­ ments in size, existing structures, needs, etc." and (139:1); (3) "everyone should work together to best further the educational aims of the university" (140:1). 73 Following several sessions in which the committee concerned itself with discussions of general principles, it began deliberations on specific proposals regarding all­ university "governmental" structures. Two months later, the Ad Hoc Committee Report on Student Participation in Academic Government (7), also known as the "Massey Report," was pre­ sented to the Academic Council of the report). (see Appendix A, for a text At the May 27, 1969, Council meeting, Professor Massey explained that the committee's report was "designed to increase student participation in university government in order to bring a fresh perspective and a full dialogue without prejudicing the final determination by experienced people in the academic community." moved adoption of the report (116:5). member responded by commenting: He then Another Council ". . . because the signif­ icance of the proposals requires a full and prior delibera­ tion by the entire faculty," the report should be referred to the various college faculties, the Graduate Council, and other educational units for "study and discussion," and that the Council should reconsider the report at a Fall, meeting (116:6). 1969, After discussing whether the subject should be postponed, the implications of further delay in acting upon the document, and whether or not any specific recommendations within the report should be considered imme­ diately, the Council voted to refer the entire report to the aforementioned groups for further consideration, but, af­ firmed its "sympathy with the spirit of the recommendations" (116:9) . 74 On October 14, 1969, the Council renewed its dis­ cussion of the Ad Hoc Committee report. Several spokesmen for various standing committees expressed reservations and suggestions regarding specific recommendations in the report. A representative of the Council of Graduate Students urged support of the document, as did a representative of ASMSU. The latter, in a statement prepared by the Chairman of ASMSU, termed the report "of significant value to the University" in terms of restoring "the shaken confidence of students in their ability to influence their education." While acknowl­ edging that the report should not be viewed as a panacea, the statement also expressed the opinion that the present practice of limited student representation on faculty com­ mittees "has been occasionally viewed with suspicion by students, and has not, in fact, brought students into mean­ ingful decision-making involvement" (117:2). When discussion of the Preamble and specific recom­ mendations began, it became increasingly obvious that the document would receive careful scrutiny, and that opinions held by Academic Council representatives would not be entirely consistent with those held by the framers of the report. For example, the phrase "effective voice" in the Preamble met with some objection. In the original Ad Hoc Committee discussion, many members apparently felt that students, faculty, and administrators "should not be in­ volved in all decisions," but that representatives of all three "should have an effective voice in setting up the 75 procedures to be used for all policy decisions, whether they are eventually involved in these actual policy decisions or not" (141:1). The Academic Council, hearing the arguments that "in not all committees and in not all committee deci­ sions is student participation equally appropriate with equal numbers," and "no one believed in full equality in academic decisions among students and faculty according to number," agreed to amend the sentence by striking out "effective voice" and inserting . . a voice, appropriate to their respective roles in the formation. . (117:4). After learning that student government would not cease to function independent of a single university govern­ ment (i.e., it would "continue to function in non-academic matters"), and noting the expressed opinion that other groups in the university community have their "own competences," the Council also eliminated the reference in the Preamble to bringing "sufficient numbers" of students into existing decision-making bodies and committees rather than "prolif­ erating parallel student advisory groups" (117:4). This could have been interpreted by members of the Ad Hoc Com­ mittee as a rebuff of an attempt to get students involved in "real power" which they agreed "lies at the departmental level" (141:2). At the following Council meeting, a spokesman for the University Curriculum Committee felt the document should include "statements on rationale, objectives, the roles of groups, the question of appropriate numbers, and committee 76 functions," and moved to have the Ad Hoc Committee "develop the objectives and . . . rewrite the report and recommenda­ tions in a manner completely logical and consistent with the objectives" (118:2). The motion was defeated after several members objected to further delay on the grounds that some suggestions had already been met, others could be developed in debate, and the remainder could be shaped in practice (118:2). The Council then proceeded to make two amendments in Recommendation 1 . Previous to the phrase "administrative unit," the word "academic" was inserted, and the last eight words were changed to read ". . . t o its student members as members of the university community." The original recom­ mendation, as interpreted by a member of the Ad Hoc Commit­ tee, was to permit inclusion of "non-student members" on internal matters. At least one Council member objected to this intent on the basis that it "exceeded the charge to the committee" (118:2). Recommendation 2 was overwhelmingly approved, despite a request to have the words "in general" deleted. Apparently, the committee's rationale "to allow for an exceptional committee on which students would sit, although without vote," was acceptable (118:3). Evidencing a concern about how these voting students would be selected, an addi­ tional amendment was approved which stated: Student representatives on major policy-making bodies and committees of the University and all other academic administrative units shall be 77 elected by the body of students represented. Members of ad hoc committees appointed for specific tasks may be appointed by the parent group or committee (119:1). This amendment was objectionable to two student representa­ tives who argued that selection of all-University student members should be made by the Board of ASMSU. The recommendation having to do with the possibility of awarding academic credit for student participation (Rec­ ommendation 3) met with stiff resistance and was deleted. Among other items discussed were the relative merits of academic credit, the payment of student fees for such credit, and the possibility of full-time student participation in academic government (119). When discussion of the report resumed on October 27, 1969, the Council entertained the following general comments: . . . the Academic Council may become unwieldy if a student joins from each new college; stu­ dent elections in the colleges are not easy to conduct; the Student Academic Council can facil­ itate college representation; colleges should be represented by students as well as by faculty members; if a student group becomes a determin­ ing force in the Academic Council, which is created to speak for the faculty Senate (Bylaws 4.4.4.1) the faculty may turn to collective bargaining; in some areas students should have virtually exclusive voice, but in other areas the faculty should have virtually exclusive voice; the faculty retains control in the Elected Faculty Council; the Elected Faculty Council may only "refer matters" to the Academic Council; in Council meetings students may be no more unanimous than are faculty members; student views have been and can be influential in chang­ ing university policy without the provision of a student vote in the Academic Council (120:1-2). 78 The fate of the Ad Hoc Committee Report on Student Partici­ pation in Academic Government was apparent by now. A motion was made to recommit the entire report to the committee, but the Council adjourned prior to officially acting upon it. The following day, a student representative to the Academic Council offered a motion to recommit the report to a new committee appointed by the President for "further reconsideration, consultation with faculty and committees, and preparation of a written rationale." carried by a vote of 36 to 13. The motion was At the invitation of the President, the Council offered additional recommendations to the new committee: that it accept the principle of student participation in all University bodies; that alternatively it develop machinery for parallel student structures; that its report not run contrary to the philosophy of the present Bylaws of the Faculty; that it not be required to reconcile its recommendations to existing legislation; that it give consideration to the wise employment of student representa­ tion, the establishment of advisory groups, the establish­ ment of more effective accountability for administrators and faculty, or the establishment of cooperative or partnership groups; that it explore ways of involving students at departmental and college levels without "explicitly" spec­ ifying what departments and colleges "ought" to do; that it set minimum levels of student participation at college and department levels; that it confine its attention to the 79 participation in academic government of faculty and students only; and that it report back in two months (121). No single reason stands out as contributing most to the Council's rejection of the "Massey Report." As can be seen from the previous description of the proceedings, some objections centered on specific wording in the document being too vague (e.g., "effective voice," "in general," "administrative unit," etc.). In a statement prepared for publication in the MSU Faculty N e w s , Dr. Massey explained that the vague language employed in the report was deliber­ ately intended "to give the several faculties, acting in good faith, maximum scope and flexibility in applying the report's general recommendations to their particular con­ texts" (106:4). Other critics claimed, as reflected in the Council motion, that the absence of a specific rationale was the primary reason for the report being recommitted. One commented that "there was no clear, concise written state­ ment . . . behind the Massey Committee's recommendation," while another spokesman noted "the need for a written state­ ment on the roles of students and the faculty is the biggest single factor" (107:1). There were some indications, however, that phraseo­ logical clarification and written statements of intent would not resolve deeper philosophical differences of opinion. One Council member suggested that "much of the basic philos­ ophy of the report on how student participation should be implemented was deeply unacceptable to a large part of the 80 faculty" (107:1). Another professor, interpreting the Preamble to mean that students and faculty would be equally involved in academic government (i.e., "a 50-50 relation­ ship"), advised that "this is a theory of togetherness that the council and I did not embrace" and that "faculty govern­ ment should be predominantly faculty" (107:1). On sabbat­ ical leave at the University of Pittsburgh, Professor Massey reportedly remarked: The numerous deletions and revisions of the report seem to indicate that it was grossly misunderstood. Besides displaying an apparent distrust of students' ability and intent, the controversy aroused by the report might mean that some faculty feel threatened (105:1). Nonetheless, discussion of the issue of student participa­ tion in academic governance would continue on the MSU campus. One could not omit reference, however, to the opinion of one very important observer of the campus scene— that of the University's Acting President: We must create channels which now don't exist for effective student participation in academic government of universities. To some people this means a rearrangement of the (existing) power structure. It is. It has always been my sin­ cere belief that if you give people a stake in government you minimize the incentive for revo­ lutionary activity. If people were allowed to work for change and reform within a system, they wouldn't want to overthrow that system. I for one have no fear about students conducting themselves in a responsible manner if they were allowed to participate more fully than they do now in the governing of this University (6:1). The "McKee Report" Approximately three months after beginning delibera­ tions, the "New Committee on Student Participation in Aca­ demic Government," chaired by Sociology Professor James B. McKee, submitted its report to the Academic Council (160). The new report (see Appendix B, for a text of the report) was a modified, though somewhat more specific, version of the original "Massey Report." The committee, said to have begun its study "with the conviction that the discussions in Academic Council clearly indicated substantial agreement that students should be involved in the academic decision­ making processes of the University" (160:1), also concen­ trated on such issues as the nature of student participation, the numbers of students involved, and how such student par­ ticipants were to be selected. Among other differences in the "Massey" and "McKee" reports, the latter: 1. called for each academic department, school, college, center and institute that has aca­ demic responsibilities within the University, or whose work concerns students, to develop methods of involving both undergraduate and graduate students in the "academic decision­ making processes" of that unit, with each unit deciding what makes up its constituency (160:5); 2. called for specific numbers of undergraduate and graduate students to be given voting membership on the Academic Council (160:9); 3. recommended student membership on various standing committees of the Academic Council (160:11-13) ; 4. recommended provisions be made for specific representation of minority students on Aca­ demic Council and standing committees (160:14); 82 5. advised the creation of a University Committee on Academic Governance for overseeing efforts to involve students in academic government and for recommending necessary changes in appropriate Bylaws of the University in response to continual study of this issue (160:16). Though a rationale for each section of recommen­ dations in the report was included (designed probably to combat a frequently heard criticism of the "Massey" docu­ ment) ,several statements appeared particularly reflective of the New Committee's intent. For example, in arguing against parallel student and faculty governing bodies, the report explained that "the possibility of separate decisions would further serve to divide the academic community rather than to unify it, and further serve to hinder the decision­ making process rather than to expedite it" (160:7). Claim­ ing that certain matters with which the Council had con­ cerned itself in recent years clearly affect students as much as faculty (e.g., the major grading report, dormitory living conditions, control of disruptions and amelioration of their causes, development and change of curricula, etc.), the report stated "to refuse students the opportunity to participate with their vote as well as their voice would lead to a lack of commitment on the part of students to any decisions made by the Council" (160:8). With regard to the recommendations about standing committee representation, the report expressed: By bringing into committee deliberations their own unique experiences and perspectives, stu­ dents can make a valuable contribution to the development of academic policy and legislation. 83 Perhaps more than any other unit of the university, the committee process constitutes "channels" of policy-making. Student access to as well as confidence in the integrity of these channels is best ensured by student representa­ tion on these committees (160:11). In its plea for the establishment of a Committee on Academic Governance, the report referred to the "need to avoid precip­ itate actions under conditions of high tension," and added: One would have to be extremely insensitive to the current ethos not to recognize the wide­ spread concern over the governance of insti­ tutions of higher learning. Regardless of one's philosophic approach, vested interest, or aspira­ tion for change, the fact remains that rarely in the history of higher education have so many questions been raised concerning who should be involved and what form the involvement should take in the governing of colleges and univer­ sities. Institutions that have been lethargic or complacent or have relied upon unexamined out-moded forms of organization or false assump­ tions have done so to their sorrow. It may have been sufficient in the past to resolve the prob­ lems created by new social pressures in ad hoe fashion. It seems likely that in the future such a policy would result in at least gover­ nance by "crisis resolution" and at worst chaos and anarchy (160:16-17). Prior to the beginning of official Academic Council discussions on the new report, it became obvious that at least one campus group was firm in its advocacy of the document— the Michigan State News editorial staff. An editorial, published four days in advance of the hearings, termed the"McKee Report""the most important document to come out of this university since the Academic Freedom Report," since it would, "at the very least, . . . establish offi­ cially that students are to be considered co-equal members 84 of the university community, rather than raw fodder for the diploma mill" (44:4). Shortly after introducing the report for considera­ tion by the Council, a challenge was issued to the New Com­ mittee which ultimately proved to be a fundamental issue of controversy. The committee was asked if it accepted the following statements from the "Academic Freedom Report": The primacy of the faculty's role and its unquestionable centrality in the educational process must be recognized. The primary intel­ lectual purpose of the University--its intel­ lectual content and integrity— is the respon­ sibility of the faculty (2.1.1); . . . we lay down as a fundamental premise, concerning the latter, (relating to faculty rights) that the competency of a professional can be rightly judged only by the professionals (2.2.4) (122:3). Responses to the question included "students have become increasingly involved in judgements on faculty compe­ tence, particularly in matters of teaching," and an agree­ ment that "professionals must be the exclusive judges of professional competence but that the aims of education must be considered by all" (122:3). Though made aware of the fact that departments and the Faculty Tenure Committee would make any decisions relative to students participating in individual cases of tenure and promotion, the Council endorsed the following amendment: Any faculty member of any department or college or center or institute who believes that his professional rights and responsibilities as a faculty member as defined in Article 2 of the Academic Freedom report have been violated by the procedures established by his department, college, center, or institute shall have the 85 right to appeal to the University Committee on Academic Governance and then to the Elected Faculty Council (122:4). The Council was then ready to begin discussion of specific recommendations in the report. By the end of its second meeting, the Council had approved, with minor modifications and amendments, all but one of the first seventeen amendments. A report that the University Faculty Tenure Committee had narrowly voted "against student membership because of the confidential nature of some of its proceedings" caused temporary post­ ponement of Recommendations 11 and 12 (123:2). Apparently, the Faculty Tenure Committee altered its stance since the recommendation having to do with numbers of students in­ volved (Number 11) was quickly approved later in the meeting, though Recommendation 12 was tabled pending Council discus­ sion of the recommendations referring to the University Committee on Academic Governance (Number 26-27). The most heated and lengthy discussion centered on those recommendations concerning the seating and numbers of minority student representatives (Number 18-23). Following questions raised about such items as institutionalized dis­ crimination, determining the constituency of "appropriate minority groups," the necessity to counteract discrimination, and legal implications of any decision, the Council approved Recommendation 18 (123:2-5). At the very next meeting, how­ ever, the vote to adopt this recommendation was reconsidered based on the argument that such a form of minority 86 representation could be challenged in the courts. Several attempts to change the wording in Recommendation 18 failed, and the Council finally decided to have another ad hoo committee consider alternative methods to assuring student minority-group representation in academic governance (124: 1-3) . The next two meetings saw all of the remaining recommendations approved, most with little or no discussion. The words "matters of exclusive concern to the faculty" in Recommendation 24 were interpreted as "not excluding groups other than the faculty on matters other than those of the 1pocketbook'" (125:2). Two additional recommendations (Number 33-34), initiated at the March 3 meeting, were adopted despite an effort to ensure that those students voting on bodies or committees would be elected by specific student constituencies (125:4). Recommendation 12, tabled earlier, was passed over the objection of one Council member who requested that students not be permitted involvement in the "judicial function" of the University Faculty Tenure Committee (125:5). A set of six recommendations prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on Minority Representation in Academic Governance was presented and approved as substitutes for the original Recommendations 18-23. The only changes made were: (a) the number of minority student representatives on cer­ tain committees (i.e., three on Tenure and Business commit­ tees, four on Student Affairs and Academic Governance com­ mittees) , (b) the phrase "no more than" preceded the 87 specified numbers involved, (c) the means of selecting minority representatives would be developed through the Office of Black Affairs, ASMSU, and (d) review of the pro­ cess would be made by the Committee on Academic Governance in three years (126:2-3). The Steering Committee was then empowered to appoint an ad hoc committee to draft the amended recommendations into bylaw amendments for incor­ poration into the Bylaws of the Faculty. On May 15, 1970, the Academic Council met to con­ sider the proposed bylaw revisions, approved the revisions in modestly amended form, and forwarded the report on to the Academic Senate. The bylaw revisions were not nearly as objectionable to some Council members as were the necessary and appropriate amendments (discussed on May 12) to certain sections of the "Academic Freedom Report." Again, the major issue seemed to be the control of matters which many inter­ preted as being exclusive faculty concerns. one article For example, (7.1.4) of the "Freedom Report" specifies that amendments would become operative if approved by the FacultyStudent Affairs Committee, the Academic Council, and the Board of Trustees. One spokesman claimed that this gave veto power, possibly on issues regarding faculty rights and responsibilities, to groups in which there is not a majority of faculty participants. The motion to have the Elected Faculty Council added to the previous list of groups was called a "reflection of an overzealous concern for the opportunity of elected faculty to have dominant power," 88 fostering "politics of suspicion and mistrust, not of cooperation," and constituted a vote of "no confidence" in student participants initially revision (32:4). Though narrowly defeated (127:2), it was suggested that reconsidering the (to have proposed amendments approved also by the Elected Faculty Council) would possibly improve the chances of the entire report being accepted by the Academic Senate. Thus, a substitute amendment to that effect was approved by the Academic Council on May 15, 1970 (128). Despite the passage of the "McKee Report" by the Council, it was clear that objections to parts of the docu­ ment still lingered. The most notable evidence of this occurred when the MSU chapter of the AAUP called for the Academic Senate to refer the report back to the Council for further revision. Endorsing the principle of student par­ ticipation, the AAUP reportedly cited the following unac­ ceptable points in the "McKee" document: 1. The academic rights and responsibilities of faculty should not be subject to change by a committee having a majority of student members (i.e., the Faculty-Student Affairs Committee); 2. Serious reservations are held about students participating in major policy decisions affecting faculty appointments, promotions, tenure, and research as suggested; 3. The powers of the elected faculty council should be expanded since it is more appro­ priately qualified to speak and act for the faculty than is an Academic Council having less than a majority of faculty representa­ tives ; 4. Since the minority representation provisions of the Report may be in violation of the 1964 89 Civil Rights Act, an advisory opinion could be requested from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; 5. Faculty representatives on two committees would be appointed by the president, whereas student representatives to the same commit­ tees would be appointed by student organiza­ tions; 6. Numerous ambiguities in the report, permit­ ting diverse interpretations, should be clarified (1:2). On June 3, 1970, the campus community became aware of the fact that the AAUP statement was more indicative of the feelings held by faculty members on the Academic Senate than was the relative absence of objections at the May 5, 1970, Academic Council meeting. A memorandum (157) prepared by twelve faculty members was circulated to the members present at the Senate meeting. The mimeographed document endorsed the "objective" of greater student involvement in academic governance and accepted the "desirability" of such participation, but outlined essentially the same six "ques­ tions" that had been expressed by the AAUP. In addition to claiming the bylaw revisions contained certain "ambiguities," "contradictions" and "questionable provisions," the state­ ment elaborated upon specific objections: . . . in the reconstituted Academic Council proposed in the McKee Committee recommendations, the Elected Faculty Representatives will have only 62 of the total of 129 votes. . . . It has been argued that the deans, vice presidents, some committee chairmen, e t c . , are faculty members too, and the reconstituted Council would still be basically a "faculty" body. The deans and other administrators (despite their great merits in other respects) lack legitimacy as faculty rep­ resentatives simply because they are not chosen 90 by the faculty for that purpose. Would the student body accept 31 students appointed by the President as their legitimate spokesmen? Obviously not (157:1). The underlying premise of the McKee Committee— as reflected in their proposals on committee structure— is that there are no such exclusive [faculty] concerns, with the possible exception of faculty compensation (157:1-2). Does the faculty wish to have students voting on faculty hiring, promotions, salary increases, tenure decisions and dismissals? . . . Do we wish to permit the application of political tests in hiring, tenure, promotion and dismissal decisions? Practical experience to date, not only here but elsewhere, suggests that student participation in such decisions means precisely that. The principle that the professional com­ petence of professionals should be judged only by professionals has been the cornerstone of academic freedom. We should amend the proposed bylaws to eliminate any possible doubt that we intend to insist upon that principle in the future as in the past (157:2) . This arrangement ("absolute veto power" to the Faculty-Student Affairs Committee) is not simply "student participation"; it begins to approach "student dictatorship," at least in important areas of academic government (157:3). Some question may be raised about the wisdom of allocating 30 percent of the student seats on the Academic Council to about 4 percent of the student body, and the establishment of a segre­ gated system of representation— complete with segregated voting lists, if voting is permitted. The most urgent point concerning the minority representation scheme, however, is that there is a strong probability that it violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act . . . which could cause a cutoff of all federal funds to the University (157:3). Following discussion of the contents of the memoran­ dum, a motion to approve the bylaw revisions was lost 111 to 427, and a resolution explaining a "Motion to Refer" the 91 proposed revisions back to the Academic Council, for further consideration and action, was approved (137:7). Understandably, the proponents of the"McKee Report" were discouraged. One professor said the central issue was "the attitudinal stance that faculty will take toward stu­ dents" (171:4). Chairman McKee allegedly charged his opponents conducted a "fear campaign" among the faculty (111:1), while a State News editorial placed the blame on "fear and ignorance" as the cause for Senate rejection. Claiming that the faculty, or at least some factions saw the "McKee Report" as a "threat to their power," the edi­ torial advised: "Before considering the structure of any revisions, we suggest that the faculty must first decide whether it is willing to share its power with the other members of the academic community" (40:4). The "Taylor Report" On October 6, 1970, a three-member "Special Panel" of MSU faculty members was established by the Academic Council to "produce a revised document which, as a whole, and in the best judgement of the Special Panel, will have a reasonable chance of approval by the Academic Senate and the Board of Trustees" "emphasize (129:6). The Panel was instructed to mediation in its proceedings, and . . . make every effort to achieve reconciliation and creative compro­ mise of the various points of view that have been expressed concerning those recommendations of the McKee Committee 92 Report that are controversial"; to report to the Council "those points on which a reasonable consensus of the parties at interest is reached"; to reserve "power to formulate its own recommendations on those points on which mediation fails to achieve a consensus"; and . . . "as it deems appropriate, consult with and consider the views of students and student groups and organizations, faculty members and faculty orga­ nizations, administration, and members of the Board of Trustees." The Panel was also asked to make "every reason­ able effort" to submit the report for consideration at the November, 1970, meeting (129:6). The report Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Government (161), also referred to as the "Taylor Report," was readied and pre­ sented to the Council for initial discussion on November 3, 1970 (see Appendix C, for a text of the report). The most substantial differences between the recommendations proposed in this document and those in the "McKee Report" had to do with minority student representation in the Academic Council and its standing committees, and the issue of student rep­ resentation in matters relating to the professional rights and responsibilities of faculty. Whereas the agreed-upon alterations in the original "McKee Report" had authorized the Office of Black Affairs of ASMSU to develop the means for selecting minority group rep­ resentatives, the Special Panel (Taylor) proposal called for at-large elections of student representatives to the Council, 93 attempted to "ensure a systematic representation of the views of non-whites and of women" in both the Council and the various standing committees, and offered guidelines on how a slate of candidates-at-large should be nominated for election to the Council or appointment to the standing com­ mittees (161:18-21, 24-30). In addressing itself to the second controversial issue, the "Taylor Report" supported the principle of allow­ ing student representatives voting privileges in the Council or standing committees, but declared "some connections" are conceived by faculty as being within its "prerogative domain." The introductory remarks explain further: These connections are the matters intended whenever a member of the faculty speaks of his rights and duties as a professional, or of the university scholar's role (whether in a public or private institution) as the enactment of a public trust. No useful purpose is served in suggesting, or in allowing students to believe, that these matters are, as the faculty views them, negotiable. They are not. And that was in effect what the Senate's rejection of the Council's revisions signified--not a rejection of student participation or a failure of re­ spect, but a simple reminder to all parties, that disciplined capacity implies precedence in the community of scholars (161:3). As outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the document (161:12), those matters in which students would not have voting re­ sponsibilities include "Matters of exclusive concern to the faculty" (i.e., salary, leaves, insurance and other fringe benefits, health service and housing, retirement); "Matters affecting the distinctively professional duties of the 94 faculty" (i.e., ". . . duties that flow from the faculty's obligation to maintain the intellectual authority of the university as a center of detached inquiry and disinterested pursuit of truth"), and "Matters in which the distinctively professional rights of the faculty are at issue" (i.e., re­ appointment, promotion, or dismissal of faculty members appointed under the rules of tenure). Section 2.2 of the "Academic Freedom Report" concerning the professional rights of faculty was included for reference purposes (161:13-14).* The revised recommendations did acknowledge, however, that "the teaching function remains a just matter of student concern" (Section 2.5.9), that faculty are not being granted "an immunity . . . from the legitimate demands for an assid­ uous, informed and considerate attention to the duties of teaching" (Section 2.5.9.1), that student representatives may "raise questions of general policy designed to provide remedies for poor teaching or negligent performance . . . " (Section 2.5.9.2), that the students' "inputs" should "fig­ ure substantively in the faculty's judgement" in tenure issues (Sec. 2.5.9.3), and that all departments, schools, institutes, and residential colleges should provide "formal opportunities for students to represent their views, in order that their views may be considered along with other evidence"(Section 2.5.9.4). Colleges were also instructed *This section was not included in the final version of the report forwarded to the Academic Senate. 95 to "develop patterns for significant involvement of its students" in decision-making processes (Section 3.6.1). If and when student and faculty opinions differed on reappoint­ ment or dismissal of faculty under tenure rules, clearly "the faculty's judgement would carry" (Section 2.5.9.5). In its session on November 3, 1970, the Council accepted amendments to Section 3.6.2 entitling any regularly enrolled full-time student to participation "in the affairs of one unit in the college in which he is enrolled" and "in the affairs of one college in the University" (130:2). A Council member moved to delete Section 2.5.7.2 having to do with the "distinctively professional duties of the faculty" by claiming: "If this means excluding students from dis­ cussing things like entrance standards or grading procedures, it is an inappropriate reservation" defeated (130:2). (194:1). The motion was A proposed amendment to Section 2.5.7.3 not restricting individual units within the University "from making provisions for student participation" failed, as did one requesting a report from each administrative and academic unit on provisions to be made for authorizing voting privi­ leges to student representatives (130:2). With a singular semantic addition (insertion of the word "their" after the word "as" in 2.5.7.1), and after several references to pro­ ducing a document acceptable to the Senate, Section I.A was formally approved. After the Special Panel agreed that the section of the report dealing with "Open Meetings of the Academic 96 Senate" should be separated from the report and discussed later, the Council began considering those recommendations regarding its own composition. An amendment striking all references to women was accepted, while efforts to reduce the number of student representatives-at-large to six and eight failed (130:3). The meeting ended without Section I.C being voted upon. The following day, the Council rejected a request to have "appropriate minority groups" develop the means of selecting student representatives-at-large rather than having at-large elections though an insertion was made in 4.4.3.08.4 expressly instructing the Student Committee on Nominations "to consult with the established non-white organizations" in addition to entertaining nominating peti­ tions from student groups and providing write-in possibil­ ities on ballots (131:1). The Council also approved in­ creasing the numbers of both undergraduates and graduate students on the Committee on Nominations, with at least two from each group being non-white (131:1). Shortly thereafter, the amended version of Section I.C was passed. Other modifications in the recommendations included deleting Section 4.4.5.5 authorizing the Elected Faculty Council to "refer matters of exclusive concern to the faculty directly to the Academic Senate" (131:4), deferring consid­ eration of sections having to do with the University Commit­ tee on Faculty Compensation and Academic Budget since the Board of Trustees had earlier disapproved such a committee ! 97 (132:1), and added another graduate student representative to the University Committee on Business Affairs (132:2). After being reminded that the proposed Faculty-Student Affairs Committee, with its student majority, would still have veto power over amendments to the "Academic Freedom Report" (and the faculty rights section), the Council deleted the word "Faculty" from the title of the committee and disallowed its initiating or reviewing proposed amend­ ments relating to academic rights and responsibilities of faculty or to those sections in Article 7 of the "Academic Freedom Report" dealing with faculty rights and responsibil­ ities (132:2). A motion to have the six faculty members on the University Student Affairs Committee serve without vot­ ing privileges was defeated (132:3). On November 17, 1960, the Council approved appro­ priate revisions in Article 7 of the "Academic Freedom Report" (amendment procedures for that document), provided voting privileges to the Vice President for Student Affairs and withdrew the same privileges from the ombudsman (at his request), and unanimously approved the revised report with an amendment that it be reviewed after a two year period (133:3). The endorsement occurred despite expressed oppo­ sition by an undergraduate representative who suggested the report provides an "illusion of participation" to students, and from the graduate student representative who wanted graduate students to have a vote in areas where they "assume the responsibilities of the faculty" (183:2). 98 In the interim between Council acceptance of the "Taylor Report" and its introduction for consideration by the Academic Senate on January 19, 1971, various opinions and points of view were expressed in the local printed media. Once again, there appeared to be little question as to where the editors of the State News stood with respect to this issue. In a series of at least seven editorials, this group offered a number of suggestions ranging from ASMSU censure of the "arrogantly hypocritical" Academic Council (41:4) to the Board of Trustees creating an independent commission to "resolve the stalemate developing between factions on this campus" and begin with the premise that "all parties in the academic community are equal partners in this noble pursuit of knowledge" (45:4). Among other comments about faculty, the editors noted: If the faculty want to group together, have a drink and be a tightly-knit in-group, that's fine. But cliques (especially those in numer­ ical minority), should not be in a position to arbitrarily govern the intellectual atmosphere of an entire University community (41:4). But now the faculty holds the reins. It took them many years to achieve their weighty voice in the University, and they aren't about to let 40,000 kiddies go messing around with the system . . . (42:4). University faculty, it seems, have an enviable position to protect. Students involved in decisions could foul up a plush occupation. To prevent such an occurrence, faculty have made extensive inroads into control of the University, particularly in the past decade. As "Academic Gamesmanship" says "The campus is a government of professors, for professors and by professors" (49:4). 99 Referring at one point to the "Taylor Report" as "innocuous pablum" (45:4), the editors seemed most concerned about students not having the authority to initiate and act on amendments to the "Academic Freedom Report" (47:4; 42:4), the exclusion of students from voting in the "broad range of areas affecting the classroom, teaching, grading and the entire spectrum of scholarly pursuit" (46:4), and the pos­ sibility of a "strict interpretation" of the revised Bylaws that would "severely hamper development of the student voice and restrict students in areas where they are already developing a significant role, particularly at the depart­ ment level" (46:4). In addressing itself to the relative transience of students and the idea that faculty may be perceived as hav­ ing a "greater stake" in the University, one editorial replied: There are over 40,000 students at MSU. And so far as anyone can tell, there will always be over 40,000 students here. Whether they are the same students seems immaterial to the matter. Students have specialized needs and specialized interests to which only students can speak. The faculty, in concert with the administration, have too long been dominating this University as if students were nothing but products to be churned out. Students deserve a piece of the action, and tokenism isn't in vogue these days (42:4). The editors urged the Senate to "rise above personal fears and unfortunate self-interests" and amend this document representing a "most certainly backward" step (43:4). The ASMSU Student Board expressed its "extreme displeasure" with the revised report by referring to it 100 as "faculty-supremist drivel." In a statement passed by acclamation, the Board said eliminating the rights of minor­ ity students to choose their own representatives "is ample evidence of the racist nature of this document" and labeled the action to restrict student involvement in those faculty rights matters outlined in the "Academic Freedom Report" as an "attempt to stampede an antistudent feeling through the ranks of the faculty" and, as such, "is despicable" (159:4). In related developments, the Women's Inter-Residence Council expressed concern about the students' academic rights when it claimed: the parts of the "By preventing USAC from changing 'Academic Freedom R e p o r t ' which are di­ rectly related to faculty, the 'Taylor Report' severely limits, even nullifies, any student voice in the choice and change of curriculum and faculty" (190:4). The chairman of ASMSU also denounced the document and suggested "Faculty members greatly underestimate the degree of student oppo­ sition to the Massey-McKee-Taylor Report." He noted that students would "have to work more closely with the admin­ istration, since the faculty has shown it isn't seriously concerned with student opinion" (20:1). In a later state­ ment, he offered specific objections to the procedure for at-large elections, the exclusion of students' voting priv­ ileges in those matters outlined, and "a last-ditch play to dupe students (and faculty as well)" into believing consid­ erable student numbers supported the document (149:4). 101 Another prominent undergraduate the MSU Student-Faculty Judiciary) (the chairman of attacked the concept that "professionals can be judged only by professionals" by call­ ing it "a sacred cow." He argued that this idea is gener­ ally applicable in the context of professional research activities, but "much more dubious" when it comes to effec­ tive teaching and learning (155:1-4). Not all of the published comments, however, were negative in nature. A spokesman for the independently organized "Coordinating Committee of Students in Academic Government" commended the "Taylor Report" for refining the "role definitions for participating in academic government" by specifying when, and on which issues, student representa­ tives may vote, by recognizing the importance of students' "inputs" into tenure decisions, and by providing an outlet for the energies of students "who are concerned about courses in their major or educational policy." He opined that the report "confounds the polemicists who would rather see confrontation than conference" (189:4). The vice chair­ man of ASMSU expressed some disappointment with "ambiguities" in the report but felt students would benefit if the Senate passed the revised document "because through action and not just words, there will be a 'University community'" (58:4). Minimal published reports concerning faculty percep­ tions appeared to reflect favorable opinions. For example, the results of an "informal telephone survey" conducted by the State News found an earlier opponent of the "MeKee 102 Report" would argue in favor of the revised version, while the chairman of the Special Panel said passage of the report would "represent a singular and very real advance for this University" (4:1). The president of the local AAUP chapter indicated the organization's Executive Council would ask its members to support the document, and the Steering Committee of the Academic Council endorsed passage by noting in a letter sent to Senate members: This document represents more than two years of effort; and we believe that senate approval of this measure, in substantially its present form is essential to the progressive development and harmony of our academic community (4:5). On January 19, 1971, the Academic Senate received and decisively passed the "Taylor Report." Though three amendments were proposed during the session, relatively little discussion was generated. An amendment guaranteeing faculty the right to appeal directly to the Academic Council when they feel their professional rights have been abridged was defeated. A move to eliminate all references to student representatives-at-large met a similar fate over the objec­ tion that "racial quotas are morally wrong, undoubtedly illegal and vague." Later, the Senate did delete the last sentence in Section 4.4.3.0 8.7 reading: six' is the imposition of a quota; "'Not more than 'at least six' is on the contrary, the acknowledgment of a right" (23:2). Several faculty members who had been closely in­ volved in the many discussions of this matter expressed surprise at the relative ease with which the revised Bylaws 103 had passed in the Senate. One expected "more debate and invective," another was "glad that the long struggle is over," and two others disagreed as to whether the faculty passed the report simply "to get it out of the way" (151:2). The latter issue brought to mind one of the few comments made in the Senate meeting, when a professor charged the faculty with "voting out of sheer frustration and boredom" (23:2). Though the "Taylor Report" had advanced beyond the procedural stages of the two previous documents, and awaited only the approval of the Board of Trustees before the Bylaws would be officially amended, controversy continued to sur­ round the report. A week after Senate approval, the ASMSU Student Board filed an injunction with the Student-Faculty Judiciary asking that the "Taylor Report" not be presented to the Board of Trustees. The rationale for the suit was based upon the argument that Article 5.4.08.3 of the docu­ ment (exempting the Student Affairs Committee from initiat­ ing or reviewing amendments to the "Academic Freedom Report") was in direct conflict with Article 7.1.1 of the "Academic Freedom Report" (authorizing the ASMSU Student Board or The Student Affairs Committee to propose or approve amendments to all sections of that report) (191). After the Academic Council met on February 2, 19 71, and failed to resolve the dilemma, a special session of the Council's Steering Committee took up the issue. In consul­ tation with various student, faculty, and administrative 104 representatives, the Steering Committee generated a proposal (8) removing the "exception" clause in 5.4.08.3, thus authorizing the University Student Affairs Committee to participate in amendment procedures regarding the faculty rights and responsibilities sections of the "Academic Free­ dom Report." In addition, the proposal insured that no amendments or revisions in those particular sections (i.e., 2.1.4.9 and 2.2) of the freedom report could be made by the Council "without prior review by the University Committee on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Compensation and the approval of the Elected Faculty Council" (134:2). The Academic Council approved the proposed amendment on February 9, 1971, and the Academic Senate did likewise on February 23, 1971. In the meantime, the Board of Trustees publicly received— for "information purposes" only— the "Taylor Report" at its February 19, 1971 meeting. As the last of several items on the agenda, the Board listened to various opinions on the matter. A professor suggested that the report "represents about the distance that the faculty rightly thinks it can go" and, if the Trustees didn't approve the revised Bylaws, the "situation will remain as it is now, with the faculty having responsibility" (150:1). '100 percent' of the The ASMSU chairman listed 17 weaknesses and recommended the report be sent back to the faculty "just to have some of the mechanics straightened out." One senior supported the report because the 31 stu­ dents on the Council is "a start"; a Board member expressed 105 reservations about the wording in that section dealing with "distinctly professional duties of the faculty" as being "too broad" and criticized Section 3.6.3 for limiting opportunities for students "to experiment" at the college level; another Trustee reviewed a list of "uncertainties" which she had previously distributed to her colleagues (150:10). The Board decided to have a committee of three from within their ranks study the report, identify the points in conflict, and report back its suggestions as to what should be done. At its March meeting, the Board requested that the University Student Affairs Committee incorporate six recom­ mendations into the document. Regarding the at-large stu­ dent representatives to the Academic Council, the Board felt at least half of the seats should be reserved for women (Section 4.4.3.08.1) and that nominations of candidates for the minority student representatives (Section 4.4.3.08.4) should come from "appropriate non-white groups in a manner to insure fair representation among such groups" (15:1). Another recommendation asked USAC to assign specific respon­ sibilities for implementing the provisions in the report. The other three recommendations referred to prerogatives of the Board itself, such as not prohibiting them from taking "prompt action on urgent financial and personnel matters" (Section 9.1),that "final judgement" in such academic mat­ ters would rest with the Board (Section 2.5.8), and that any amendment to the Bylaws "affecting the substance of 106 academic governance" the Board (Section 9.2) would be approved by (15:1). The University Student Affairs Committee drafted amendment recommendations consistent with the requests of the Board (147, 202). Among other things, they provided for at least one woman undergraduate and one woman graduate student on the Student Committee on Nominations (Section 4.4.3.08.3), recommended the nominations for the minority seats would be entertained from "student groups and indi­ viduals" as well as non-white student groups, and that ballots for these seats would be equipped with write-in possibilities (Section 4.4.3.08.4). On April 20, 1971, the Academic Council approved those amendments pertaining to actual student involvement, but defeated that which granted final judgment in matters affecting faculty rights and responsibilities to the Board, and that which authorized the Board to approve all amend­ ments affecting the substance of academic governance (135). A Council member referred to the latter amendments as "violating the principle of faculty competence and authority, faculty right to deal with matters in which they, and they alone, are competent to decide" (33:4). A faculty affairs committee resolution reportedly called such an attempt a "symbolic intrusion, if not a real one, into faculty gov­ ernance" (33:4) . Some concern was expressed that the Council's rejec­ tion of the two recommendations offered by the Trustees would lead to still further delay in implementing the Bylaw revisions. motion Reportedly, this concern motivated a Council (35) referring to the rejected recommendations as "not essential to the issue of student participation in academic governance" and that the decision "should not prejudice the Board action with respect to that issue" (135:4). Perhaps the concern was unnecessary, for following Senate confirmation of the revisions (3:1) and a State News editorial request for Board approval of the report despite its "serious flaws" (48:4), the Trustees unanimously accepted the amended "Taylor Report." Shortly thereafter, the Steering Committee of the Faculty directed the revisions to be incorporated into the Bylaws and set January 1, 1971, as the deadline for implementation by colleges and depart­ ments (136:2) . Related Research It will be recalled that at the outset of meetings by the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government, Professor Gerald Massey sent letters to all college deans and departmental chairmen requesting informa­ tion relative to the present role, evaluation, and direction of students' involvement in academic decision-making. A summary of the responses was tabulated by the MSU Office of Institutional Research (95). Representatives of the fifteen MSU colleges indicated that 36 of the 40 college level committees provided for some form of undergraduate or 108 graduate student participation. Twenty-eight percent of these committees reportedly provided for student voting privileges, while the remaining were classified as "using student participation by voice"; 24 committees claimed to serve an "advisory function," 14 a "decision-making and advisory function," and 1 solely a "decision-making func­ tion." Among those reporting on agenda, "25 listed dealing with curricular items, 22 with general student dissatisfac­ tions, 15 with teaching items, 10 with advising items, and 7 with grading items." Twenty of the 35 committees offering an evaluation of their present student status said they had found it valuable (more than half of those expressed the desire to increase student participation), 40 percent said the experiment was "too new to make a reasonable value judge­ ment," and one committee reported the "present student par­ ticipation was not valuable but would like to alter it so as to make participation more valuable." The report on the survey noted, also, that "most student participation on these committees dates back no earlier than 1967-68" (95:1-2). Two-thirds of the 115 MSU departments contacted responded to Dr. Massey's letter, 2 3 of which reported no committees. Of the 90 departmental committees reporting, only 3 appeared to have "faculty only" status. Thirty-one percent of the committees indicating the extent of partic­ ipation noted students were allowed voting privileges. than 80 percent listed their function as "advisory." More Most of the committees dealt with curriculum matters, with less 109 than half reporting other concerns. Seventy-two percent reported student participation as "valuable," 14 percent expressed "not valuable," and the remaining 14 percent exercised a "no judgement" opinion. As to the desirability of altering the student's present role, opinion was almost equally divided between those who did not feel it necessary to alter it and those who felt students should be offered more opportunities to participate (95:3-4). Of the 38 all-university Senates, Councils or Com­ mittees, Lauth reported that 12 had student membership undergraduate and 9 graduate student members). (23 Only 14 of the 32 students were designated regular members of their respective committees (all but one had voting privileges) and most of them were appointed. Other graduate and under­ graduate students served on various student publications, student rights, and judicial committees (95:5). This mimeographed summary of student participation at Michigan State University was, at best, sketchy and ambiguous. One must appreciate, of course, the difficulty of synthesizing opinions from an agglomeration of open-ended letters. Nonetheless, its inclusion here demonstrates the extent to which a need exists to analyze more objectively the status of student involvement in governance functions at MSU. Robert Fedore studied the opinions of randomly selected MSU students, student leaders, faculty and admin­ istrators with regard to the desirability of selected 110 principles or statements in the "Academic Freedom" report (54). Among other things, F ed o r e 1s dissertation study found significant differences in group responses to the principle dealing with "the establishment of procedures for hearing complaints to reconcile the right of a faculty and the right of a student" (54:77), and to the principle that "membership is provided for students on regular departmental and college committees in which problems are discussed and policies formulated" (54:79). Though the author suggested both principles were thought to be generally desirable by all four groups, the latter was perceived as being more desir­ able by students and student leaders than by faculty and administrators (54:79), and students thought this particular principle had led to fewer changes in practices than did the other three groups (54:81). Dr. Fedore also noted a "con­ cern that students should not participate in discussions on faculty matters," but the only evidence he used to substan­ tiate that claim was: (a) two administrators and one faculty person "felt that students tended to lose interest quickly in the work of such committees," and (b) two admin­ istrators and three faculty felt that "some committees should not have student representation" (54:81). Interest­ ingly, this study also pointed out dramatically significant differences in opinions about the principle that "students participate to the maximum extent feasible in formulating and revising regulations governing student conduct." Whereas "86 percent of the student leaders considered the Ill principle to be highly desirable (rating of 5), only 57 percent of the faculty marked it accordingly (54:107). In an earlier thesis study of perceptions regarding the students' role in policy formulation, Hekhuis reported statistically significant differences (at the .01 level) in 51 of 71 items on an instrument completed by Michigan State students, faculty, and administrators (71). The author found greatest agreement in those areas where students have had a "traditionally accepted role" in policy-making, such as student government activities, fraternity-sorority mem­ berships, and supervision of social activities (71:99). Student leaders and student non-leaders were said to have favored greater "shared responsibility" for matters pertain­ ing to "student personnel" issues, with academic administra­ tors and student personnel administrators agreeing more than did faculty leaders and faculty non-leaders. Although fac­ ulty non-leaders most frequently felt students should not participate, Hekhuis concluded that some form of student involvement in student personnel matters was "perceived as desirable by students and faculty alike" (71:100). Such was not the case in issues of a "general insti­ tutional" or "academic administration" nature. The student groups usually felt they should have opportunities to offer advice or recommendations on academic matters exclusive of "faculty selection," "faculty teaching loads," and "selec­ tion of graduate assistants" (71:106). Academic administra­ tors and faculty, particularly the faculty leaders, disagreed 112 with respect to "general institutional governance" (71:103). The most extensive disagreement, however, occurred when faculty leaders and non-leaders evidenced opposition to any student participation in most "academic" matters (71:105). Another indication of opinions regarding this issue is reflected in the results of an MSU Omnibus Survey, Report #1 (142) conducted by the Urban Survey Research Unit, Bureau of Social Science Research. During Winter term, 1970, Dr. Philip Marcus and his associates sent a mailed questionnaire to a selected sample of 2,500 MSU graduate and undergraduate students, 500 faculty (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors), and 500 administra­ tors (academic and non-academic). In one of the four major sections of the instrument, respondents were asked to indi­ cate who should have the most influence, and who presently has the most influence, over 15 different aspects of campus life. The respondents were asked to select from among seven possible alternatives for each item: administrators alone, faculty alone, students alone, or four different combina­ tions of these groups. Included among the results were the following: 1. There was "rather high agreement" among all sub­ groups regarding who makes decisions— "respondents reported that decisions were made by administrators and faculty jointly or by administrators alone; stu­ dents were perceived as non-influential." Typical examples were responses to "appointing a department 113 chairman," "appointing an academic dean," and "appointing a university president" 2. (142:25). Responses indicated, however, substantially vary­ ing opinions about who makes decisions in certain areas— e.g., determining on-campus or off-campus housing regulations; determining university policy on student protests 3. (142:25-26). Administrators generally "tend to see their influ­ ence as lower than it is perceived by the other three subgroups, especially undergraduates. In only three areas were there general agreements about the exercise of influence: determining faculty salaries, university budget allocations, and tuition and fees" (142:26). 4. ". . . many items indicate that much confusion exists on campus as to the actual distribution of influence over university policy decisions. For example, on many items students not only perceive influence differently from administrators but the spread in student responses indicates they do not know (e.g., 'determining tenure' and 'hiring new faculty')" (142:26). 5. Regarding who should make each decision, all sub­ groups favored combinations of students, faculty, or administrators working in conjunction (e.g., administrators and faculty "determining faculty salaries"). Most agreed, also, that "students 114 alone, or students and administrators without faculty participation should not have the most influence to make decisions" (142:27). The report contains some noteworthy suggestions for thought or action: 1. If the administration does not act as uni­ laterally as others perceive them, more clear-cut evidence will have to be presented to dispel the myth (142:26). 2. If people do not know who exerts influence over decisions, they are incapable of work­ ing through channels to effect change. One might expect that feelings of frustration and random, unproductive action is most likely to occur when such confusion exists (142:26-27). 3. . . . faculty did not hesitate to share in decisions with both administrators and students (142:44). 4. It should be noted that, in general, under­ graduates seem to want more autonomy for themselves, but not for more influence over others. Thus, our item concerning who should exercise influence does not indicate under­ graduates expressing great desires for acquiring unilateral decision-making power; rather it is a desire for shared influence (142:45). With regard to its relevance to this dissertation, however, the data collected in the MSU Omnibus Survey reveals interesting information which is not referred to in the text of the report. In only six of the fifteen listed university policy matters was there a majority of adminis­ trators and faculty who felt students should have an influ­ ence in making decisions (either alone or in conjunction 115 with administrators and/or faculty). Those six areas were: "Appointing the university president," "Creating new educa­ tional programs," an examination," "Disciplining a student for cheating on "Determining off-campus student housing regulations," "Determining on-campus student housing regu­ lations," and "Determining university policy on student protests." In the two matters about student housing regu­ lations, most administrators and faculty respondents indi­ cated the "administrator-student" combination should have the most influence, whereas "administrators, faculty, and students in conjunction" was the alternative most acceptable in the other four matters (142:21-22). More than 50 percent of the responding administra­ tors favored "Administrators and faculty in conjunction" in the areas of "Appointing a department chairman," "Appointing an academic dean," "Determining faculty salaries," mining tenure for faculty members "Deter­ "Determining university budget allocations," and "Hiring new faculty members." Similar opinions were received from faculty. Though slightly less than 50 percent marked the "administrator-facuity" alternative for "Appointing a department chairman" and "Appointing an academic dean," it was still the most fre­ quently selected alternative in all six areas. A majority of administrators and faculty felt that "Administrators (including Trustees) Alone" should have the most influence in "Determining university tuition and fees" (142:21-22). 116 One area in which opinions were almost equally divided was that of "Determining university admissions policies." Forty-three percent of the administrators and 44 percent of the faculty felt the "administrator-facuity" combination should be most influential in these decisions, while 42 percent of both administrators and faculty said all three groups (including students) should work in con­ junction. Opinions about the final policy matter, "Determining if a controversial faculty member should be rehired," dif­ fered in some respects. Forty-eight percent of the adminis­ trators felt that the "administrators-faculty" combination should be most influential in such decisions, with 33 per­ cent favoring the idea of having students involved with the other two groups. Faculty members' opinions were more equally distributed, in that 38 percent said "administratorsfaculty," 35 percent responded "administrators-facultystudent," and 10 percent suggested the "faculty-student" combination should be involved. Only 3 percent of the admin­ istrators favored the latter category (142:22). The MSU Omnibus Survey, Report #1 could have pro­ vided much more insight into attitudes about decision-making influence. For one thing, the report might have correlated responses with the selected demographic characteristics collected from the respondents (142:72-81) in order to more accurately assess the extent to which opinions may vary within the broad categories of "faculty," "administrators," 117 and "students." If, for example, student personnel adminis­ trators were included in the "non-academic" administrator classification, there is reason to suspect that their opinions towards student participation in governance activ­ ities would probably have been more favorable than unfavor­ able (38, 64, 71, 197) and, as such, altered the entire "administrator" response pattern. Another variable, uncontrolled for in the study, was that of student "status." The questions arise: Would identifying graduate and undergraduate "students" as partic­ ipants have an effect on the distribution of responses? Would the responses have been any different had the sample been asked about giving "students" voting privileges in the various decision-making matters? As seen in previous sec­ tions of this treatise, such variables can and do influence the opinions of educators toward this issue. Summary The intent of this chapter was to demonstrate how a major university has tried to define the role of students in institutional governance. Beginning more than five years ago with a recognition of the need to restructure its rules and regulations pertaining to the "academic freedom of stu­ dents," Michigan State University has continued to examine its relationships and responsibilities to students. The 1967 "Academic Freedom" report guaranteed procedural due process protection of the rights of students in, and outside, r 118 the classroom, provided comprehensive provisions for appeal and review of regulations, and recommended that colleges and departments establish clearly defined channels through which students could offer suggestions and complaints about aca­ demic matters. Slightly more than a year later, the University was again evidencing concern about the students' roles, this time with regard to their actively participating in academic decision-making processes at all organizational levels. For two and one-half years, formal hearings and meetings were conducted, three ad hoc committees drafted reports of recom­ mendations, lengthy discussions were conducted in the University's Academic Council and Academic Senate, and innumerable conversations and public statements bared the biases of many within the community. In June, 1971, offi­ cial sanction was received for a two-year experiment of increased formal student involvement in various governance functions. They were specifically excluded from participa­ tion in certain academic matters. The proceedings reviewed in this chapter testify to the controversy surrounding the issue of greater student involvement in university affairs. If one were simply in­ terested in knowing that there are both staunch proponents and opponents of such a practice at MSU, there would be no need to conduct further investigation. One might conclude that many faculty members will not allow students to take part in making decisions pertaining to their professional 119 rights and responsibilities. But that does not help us comprehend the possible variables contributing to such a stand, or explain why many others do not have similar reservations. The research studies referred to in this chapter do not provide much assistance in clarifying these sub­ stantive concerns. Again, it appears as though there is some support from educators for students to have a greater voice in certain types of matters (e.g., student affairs), but not in decisions which are more directly related to their own (educators) professional careers. Before that decision will be widely accepted in the campus community, however, possible reasons for those opinions will have to be more adequately identified, discussed, and understood. CHAPTER IV DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction Explanations of the purpose and objectives of the study, questions to be answered, and a general outline of the plan to be followed were presented in Chapter I. More detailed consideration is given in this chapter to describ­ ing the population and samples, development and utilization of the instrument, procedures employed in collecting the data, and statistical techniques used in analyzing the collected data. The Population and Samples The source of data for the study is nine randomly selected samples of twenty individuals representing regular faculty members and academic administrators in three groups of academic colleges at Michigan State University. The nine sample groups are: 1. Non-tenured faculty members in the Liberal Arts group of colleges. "Non-tenured faculty" are defined as those members of the "regular faculty" (see "Design of the Study" section, Chapter I) at 120 121 Michigan State University affiliated with an aca­ demic department and college, not serving in aca­ demic administrative capacities, and who have not attained tenure status. "Liberal Arts" colleges include the College of Arts and Letters, Justin Morrill College, and two of the four departments within the University College (American Thought and Language, and Humanities). 2. Tenured faculty members in the Liberal Arts group of colleges. "Tenured faculty" are defined as those members of the regular faculty at MSU affiliated with an academic department and college, not serving in academic administrative capacities, and who have attained tenure status. 3. Academic administrators in the Liberal Arts group of colleges. "Academic administrators" are defined as those persons serving in positions as directors of residence instruction, department chairmen or acting department chairmen, and deans, associate deans or assistant deans of MSU colleges. 4. Non-tenured faculty members in the Social Science group of colleges (i.e., James Madison College, the Colleges of Business, Communication Arts, Education, Human Ecology, and Social Science— including the University College Social Science department). 5. Tenured faculty members in the Social Science group of colleges. 122 6. Academic administrators in the Social Science group of colleges. 7. Non-tenured faculty members in the Natural Science group of colleges (i.e., Lyman Briggs College, the Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Engineering, Human Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, and Natural Sciences— including the University College Natural Science department). 8. Tenured faculty members in the Natural Science group of colleges. 9. Academic administrators in the Natural Science group of colleges. A table of random numbers was used to select partic­ ipants from among departmental populations (supplied by the Office of Institutional Research) within academic colleges at Michigan State University.* Representatives from various research divisions, experiment stations, institutes, centers, special programs, bureaus, and laboratories within colleges were excluded from participating previous to the samples being selected. All participants were affiliated with their respective departments and colleges as of January 1, 1971. Faculty and academic administrators holding joint appoint­ ments between departments or colleges within the same *The source used in identifying departments was Part III— Organization of Michigan State University— September 1, 1970 (section "The Academic Organization"). 123 college group were included in the populations and, thus, eligible to be selected in a sample. Those having joint appointments between departments or colleges in separate college groups were excluded from participating. Also exempted from possible participation were representatives of the Office of the Provost, the College of Osteopathic Medicine, the School for Advanced Graduate Studies, Li ­ braries, Honors College, Continuing Education Service, Educational Development Program, Office of Institutional Research, Instructional Development Service, and Miscel­ laneous Services. An unbiased estimate of sample size— a number of participants sufficiently large to detect statistically significant differences if such differences exist— was based upon the method described by Kirk (93:9-10). specified the probability of a type-I error probability of a type-II error The researcher (.05), the (.05), and the minimum treat­ ment effect interested in being detected (.5 unit). The number of treatment levels in the study was 3 and an esti­ mate of the population error variance was based upon the largest standard deviation among specific group scores in the pilot study (.71). Applying this data into Kirk's mathematical formula, and using his set of "power curves" (93:541), a sample size of 10 in each cell was determined to be sufficient for the study. The number of participants from each sample the researcher decided upon than the minimum number required. (20) was more 124 Instrumentation The development of the instrument used in the study (a copy of which is included in Appendix D) occurred over a period of eight months. Initially, several hundred expres­ sions of opinion were gathered from educational literature and related research which reflected upon the issues of stu­ dent qualifications to participate in academic governance, the role of faculty members in such affairs, and the per­ ceived or anticipated consequences of greater student in­ volvement in academic matters. The statements evidenced both favorable and unfavorable views regarding student participation. Representatives from the Michigan State University Office of Institutional Research and the Office of Evaluation Services, in addition to a group of faculty and administrator colleagues, helped the author eliminate repetitious, ambiguous statements, rephrase certain state­ ments so as to express either a positive or negative opinion, and group the items according to their perceived homogeneity. These resource people also helped identify a series of fac­ ulty personnel and curriculum-related matters which commonly require decision-making action, both with respect to estab­ lishing general policies or guidelines (e.g., establishing guidelines for hiring faculty, developing university policy on adding courses to curricula) personnel or curriculum concerns and acting upon specific (e.g., hiring individual faculty members, adding new courses to the curriculum). 125 The instrument designed for use in a pilot study consisted of 105 items within eleven scales. The first section listed 32 personnel and curriculum matters, each of which was assigned to one in the following set of four scales: (A) Specific Personnel matters— 9 items; eral Personnel matters— 9 items; matters— >7 items; (B) Gen­ (C) Specific Curriculum (D) General Curriculum matters — 7 items. Respondents were asked to indicate which response alterna­ tive most closely represented their personal opinion regard­ ing the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in action taken on that particular matter in for­ mal decision-making sessions. Examples of such sessions, offered in the "Directions" for clarification purposes, included "committee or council meetings at the departmental, college, or all-university level." The four response alter­ natives were: 1. Strong Involvement— At least as many undergraduate students as faculty involved in the decision-making process, with students having voting privileges. 2. Moderate Involvement— Fewer numbers of undergraduate students than faculty involved in the decision­ making process, with students having voting privileges. 3. Advisory Involvement— Undergraduate students in­ volved m the decision-making process in advisory capacities only, without voting privileges. 4. No Involvement— Undergraduate students not involved in either advisory or voting capacities in the decision-making process. Group means for each scale were tabulated by assigning values of 1 to response alternative 1, 2 to response alternative 2, 3 to response alternative 3, and 4 to response alternative 4, 126 adding the individual scores, and dividing the total score by the number of respondents in each sample group. Thus, the lower total scores and group means represented more favorable opinions as to actual involvement of undergrad­ uates in those matters included in each scale. The items were randomly listed with the intent of discouraging pos­ sible response-set bias in the scales. The second section of the pilot instrument consisted of 30 statements, each of which helped make up one in the following set of four scales: (E) Qualifications of under­ graduate students to be involved in personnel-related ma t ­ ters— 9 items; (F) Qualifications of undergraduate students to be involved in curriculum-related matters— 9 items; (G) Faculty role in personnel-related matters— 6 items; (H) Faculty role in curriculum-related matters— 6 items. For purposes of clarification, the "Directions" preceding Section II defined "personnel-related" matters as those "pertaining exclusively to faculty status in the university (e.g., hiring, dismissing, promoting, evaluating faculty)," and defined "curriculum-related" matters as those "pertain­ ing exclusively to authorized university courses and degree programs (e.g., credit hours, degree requirements, course objectives)." Respondents were asked to indicate which of the following five response alternatives most closely rep­ resented the extent to which they agreed with the particular statements: 1. Strongly Agree with the statement. 127 2* Agree with the statement. 3. Undecided as to whether I agree or disagree with the statement. 4. Disagree with the statement. 5. Strongly Disagree with the statement. The statements were designed to facilitate comparing opinions regarding undergraduate student qualifications to participate in personnel matters curriculum matters (scale E) as opposed to (scale F ) , and to compare perceptions of faculty roles in both types of matters (scales G and H ) . relatively unfavorable expression in one scale A (e.g., "The undergraduate student population is too transient to be involved in faculty personnel-related decisions") was com­ plemented with a statement reflecting a relatively favorable opinion concerning the same issue in the other scale (e.g., "The transient nature of the undergraduate population should not inhibit such students from contributing to discussions of curriculum-related matters"). The numerical scoring values assigned to relatively favorable statements ranged from 1 for a "Strongly Agree" response through 5 for a "Strongly Disagree" response, with the scoring values being reversed for relatively unfavorable statements (a value of 5 assigned to a "Strongly Agree" response through 1 for a "Strongly Disagree" response). The lower total scores and group means thus represented greater agreement with the relatively favorable expressions and disagreement with the unfavorable statements. Possible response-set bias was 128 thought to be reduced by generating both favorable and unfavorable statements within each scale, and by randomly listing all of the items in the scale set. In Section III of the pilot instrument, respondents were asked to assume that "an agreed-upon number of under­ graduates had voting privileges on departmental, college, and all-university decision-making bodies considering faculty-personnel and curriculum-related matters in the previous section)." (as defined Forty-three statements were presented, all of which described possible conditions result­ ing from such undergraduate student involvement. The state­ ments were grouped into one of the following three scales: (I) Anticipated effects upon undergraduate students— 14 items; (J) Anticipated effects upon faculty— 14 items; (K) Anticipated effects upon the general university commu­ nity— 15 items. Respondents were instructed to indicate which of five response alternatives most closely represented the extent to which they felt the condition described in the statement would be likely to result from the specified under­ graduate involvement. The response alternatives were: 1. Very Likely— This condition is very likely to result from such undergraduate student involvement. 2. Likely--This condition is likely to result from undergraduate student involvement. 3. Undecided— Uncertain as to whether this condition is likely or unlikely to result from such under­ graduate student involvement. 4. Unlikely— This condition is unlikely to result from such undergraduate student involvement. 129 5. Very Unlikely— This condition is very unlikely to result from such undergraduate student involvement. Both relatively favorable results (e.g., "Feelings of depersonalization among undergraduate students would be reduced") and relatively unfavorable results (e.g., "Stu­ dent participants would be in danger of spending too much time in decision-making and too little time in their aca­ demic endeavors") were offered in each scale. The numerical scoring values assigned to favorable results ranged from 1 for a "Very Likely" response through 5 for a "Very Un­ likely" response, and reversed in responses to unfavorable results (5 = "Very Likely"; 1 = "Very Unlikely"). The lower total scores and group means identified those who perceived more favorable than unfavorable conditions as likely to result from undergraduate student involvement in personnel and curriculum matters. Again, randomly listing both favor­ able and unfavorable conditions within the set of scales was implemented to discourage the possibility of response-set bias. The pilot instrument was personally distributed to five randomly selected representatives from the nine popula­ tions during the second week in January, 1971, and was per­ sonally collected from 41 of the 45 respondents within a week. asked: In an accompanying cover letter, the respondents were "Should you find any aspect of the directions, the response alternatives, or the individual statements poorly phrased, ambiguous or confusing in any way, please encircle 130 the objectionable section and write your criticism in the margin or on the back of the page." More than 200 written comments were received pertaining to interpretation of certain items, ambiguity in others, suggestions on rephras­ ing some statements and clarification of the directions preceding each section. Simple correlations were computed between the total scores for each item and the total scores on its respective scale. Only those items having a correla­ tion of .60 or better with the scale were retained for possible inclusion in the final instrument. Utilizing the subjective comments and suggestions from the pilot samples, and the suggestions offered from a separate group of faculty and administrator colleagues, many of the remaining items were rephrased to eliminate the most frequently noted criticisms. titious were eliminated. Several perceived to be repe­ Representatives from the Office of Evaluation Services assisted in making further revisions and preparing the instrument in its final form. The questionnaire used in this study consisted of eleven scales of items. Each scale related to a particular variable pertaining to the issue of undergraduate student involvement in academic governance matters, and about which differences of opinion among educators had been identified. For the purpose of organization and discussion, the scales were assigned to one of the following Variable S e t s : (I) Selected academic decision-making matters in which undergraduates might participate; (II) Undergraduate student 131 qualifications to participate, and perceived faculty roles, in personnel or curriculum-related matters; and (III) Anticipated results of undergraduate student involvement in personnel and curriculum-related matters. A general outline of the organization of the instrument, including the items comprising each scale or repeated measure, is as follows: Variable Set I . Selected academic decision-making matters in which undergraduates might participate. Scale A(R^) Specific personnel-related matters (Items 7, 3, 24, 1, 23, 21, 6) Scale B(R 2 ) General personnel-related matters (Items 16, 14, 9, 20, 25, 28, 11) Scale C(R3) Specific curriculum-related matters (Items 17, 10, 19, 12, 26, 8, 5) Scale D(R^) General curriculum-related matters (Items 22, 15, 2, 4, 18, 13, 27) Variable Set I I . Undergraduate student qualifications to participate, and perceived faculty roles, in personnel or curriculum-related decision-making matters. Scale E(R^) Undergraduate student qualifications to participate in personnel-related matters (Items 47, 51, 45, 32, 39, 52, 31) Scale F(R,) 6 Undergraduate student qualifications to participate in curriculum-related matters (Items 44, 41, 40, 43, 29, 48, 35) Scale G(R^) Faculty roles in personnel-related matters (Items 37, 42, 46, 49, 36) Scale H(R_): Faculty roles in curriculum-related matters (Items 34, 50, 38, 30, 33) 132 Variable Set III. Anticipated results of undergraduate student involvement in personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters. Scale I(Rg): Anticipated results affecting under­ graduate students (Items 72, 63, 66, 57, 65, 71, 59, 67, 68) Scale J(R-^q ): Anticipated results affecting faculty members (Items 58, 69, 62, 78, 54, 61, 60, 53, 77) Scale K(R ): Anticipated results affecting the general university community (Items 80, 56, 74, 55, 76, 70, 79, 73, 75, 64) The decision-making matters listed in scales A and B refer to the same types of personnel issues, but place the actual involvement in different contexts. In scale A, for example, respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they feel undergraduate students should be involved in the specific act of "Appointing the department chairman" (Item 7). Item 16 in scale B, however, asks respondents to indicate the extent to which undergraduates should be in­ volved in the more general act of "establishing guidelines for appointing department chairmen." Similar contrasts per­ taining to specific as opposed to general curriculum-related issues are offered in scales C and D, respectively. An effort was made to express analogous statements with alternating favorable and unfavorable connotations in those scales concerning undergraduate student qualifications to participate in personnel and curriculum-related matters (E and F, respectively). The same attempt was made in 133 designing scales G and H referring to faculty roles in the respective matters. No conscious attempt was made to draft similar items across the scales in Variable Set III. Consultation with experts at each stage in the development of the instrument was intended to increase the objectivity of the items and enhance the face validity of the questionnaire. Random listing of items in the scales, and producing an equal number of favorable and unfavorable statements in Variable Sets II and III, was intended to reduce the possibility of response-set bias. Internal con­ sistency reliability coefficients for each scale, as deter­ mined in the analysis of the data, are reported in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Hoyt Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficients on Study Instrument Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale A B C D E F G H I J K (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated (Repeated Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10 ) 11 ) 0.86 0.91 0.90 0.92 0 .81 0.79 0. 87 0.84 0.83 0.85 0.82 134 Collection of the Data The data used in the study was collected in three stages. On February 15, 1971, a copy of the instrument, along with a cover letter explaining the purposes of the study and instructions for returning the completed question­ naire (see Appendix D ) , was delivered to each respondent's mail box in his departmental office. second letter Two weeks later, a (see Appendix D ) , accompanied by another copy of the instrument, was mailed to non-respondents through the campus mail system. To eliminate any conflict with final examinations or the spring vacation, a second follow-up effort, conducted by telephone, was not begun until the first week in April. After two weeks of contacting all but four of the remaining non-respondents, the telephone followup was halted. One additional week was allowed for further returns before the analysis began. Table 4.2 provides information on the collected, and uncollected, instruments. As can be seen from this table, slightly better than 80 percent of the possible respondents returned completed and usable questionnaires. Ninety-four usable returns were received previous to the follow-up letter and questionnaire being distributed. Six individuals returned unanswered questionnaires and were not included in the follow-up phases. Each of the six non-participants at this stage forwarded written explanations reflecting their reasons for not par­ ticipating. One claimed he began to fill out the question- niare but decided he couldn't complete it with "a clear i Table 4.2 Summary of Participating and Non-Participating Subjects in Samples 3 F1 Early return follow up) Return after Return after Total usable f2 F3 % of Total C1 c2 c3 Cl c2 c3 Cl c2 C3 Total 5 7 3 15 14 4 0 18 10 6 1 17 10 4 1 15 7 5 4 16 13 2 12 3 10 6 13 5 15 15 16 18 94 42 9 145 52.2 23.4 5.0 80. 6 3 1.7 6 3.3 (before 1st 1st follow-up 2nd follow-up returns Unusable returns Not participating (notified before 2nd follow-up) Not participating (notified during 2nd follow-up) No response Total non-participants 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 1 2 5 1 2 4 1 2 5 3 5 1 2 4 2 2 9 17 35 5.0 9.4 19.4 Total sample Non-participants Usable returns randomly discarded 20 5 20 2 20 3 20 5 20 4 20 5 20 5 20 4 20 2 180 35 100.0 19.4 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 10 5.6 Total N in analysis 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 135 75.0 aKey: 5 F-^ = Non-tenured faculty F 2 = Tenured faculty F^ = Academic administrators C-^ = Liberal Arts colleges C 2 = Social Science colleges = Natural Science colleges 136 conscience" because, "while it may well give a sample of attitudes held, it offers no assurances that the interpre­ tation of the data amassed reflects in any way the opinions of those polled." One said he "intensely dislikes filling out questionnaires," another objected to receiving "unso­ licited requests such as yours without prior contact," and a fourth apologized for not being able to afford the "con­ siderable expenditure of time needed to answer the questions thoughtfully." The other two simply noted "Sorry— I do not care to participate" and "I do not wish to be surveyed by y o u ." Of the remaining 80 sample subjects, 42 (52.2 per­ cent) returned completed and usable instruments in response to the initial follow-up. participants Nine of the other 3 8 possible (23.7 percent) returned completed and usable forms after the telephone follow-up. were dismissed as unusable: recorded in Section III Two additional returns one because no responses were (Variable Set II I) ; another because the respondent saw fit to add a sixth response alternative to Section III ("no basis for reference") and marked that particular alternative in more than half of the items. A third return was classified unusable because it was received after the analysis of the data had begun. Six of the nine subjects who indicated they would not participate when telephoned said that they didn't have time to complete the instrument. One individual noted that the range of response alternatives did not "adequately 137 encompass" his feelings on the issues, and the other two expressed concern about the code number on the instrument making it possible to identify opinions of individual respondents. Each of the 13 subjects contacted by tele­ phone, and from whom no response was received, indicated they would return the completed instrument if time allowed. None verbally expressed reservations about participating in the study. Reservations were received, however, from two unidentified individuals— one who returned the back page from the instrument with the comment "I began but decided not to complete the form— too many repetitious questions"; and the other who completed the questionnaire but removed the code number previous to returning it. To accommodate efficiency in analyzing the data and interpreting the results, it was decided to make the sample sizes equal throughout the cells in the design. Conse­ quently, ten usable returns from subjects representing groups identified in Table 4.2 were randomly discarded before the analysis began. Treatment of the Data The instrument was designed so that the data col­ lected could be quantified and coded for computer analysis. Determining group means for Variable Set I (Section I) con­ sisted of assigning values of 1 to response alternative 1 , 2 to response alternative 2, 3 to response alternative 3, and 4 to response alternative 4, adding the individual I . 138 scores of respondents in the group, and dividing the total score by the number of subjects (15) in each group. The lower group means represented more favorable opinions as to actual involvement of undergraduates in those matters identified in the scale. In Variable Sets II and III, the scoring procedure varied between responses to relatively favorable and unfav­ orable statements or expressions of conceivable conditions. Weighted values for favorable statements in Section II ranged from 1 ("Strongly Agree") Disagree"). through 5 ("Strongly Scoring values were weighted in reverse for responses to relatively unfavorable statements, with a value of 5 representing a "Strongly Agree" response and 1 a "Strongly Disagree" selection. A comparable scoring pro­ cedure was implemented in Section III where "Very Likely" through "Very Unlikely" responses to relatively favorable expressed conditions were assigned values ranging from 1 through 5, and reversed in responses to unfavorable condi­ tions (i.e., "Very Likely" = 5;"Very Unlikely" = 1). Again, the group mean scores were determined by adding the total scores attained by individuals within the respective groups and dividing by 15. The lower mean scores in Variable Set II represented greater agreement with favorable statements and lesser agreement with unfavorable statements. Lower mean scores in Variable Set III were attained by those per­ ceiving more favorable than unfavorable conditions as likely to result from undergraduate involvement in personnel and j t . i curriculum matters. 139 Because of the exploratory nature of the investi­ gation, no specific testable hypotheses were stated. The following general null hypotheses, however, are implied in the basic questions of this study as outlined in the section entitled "Questions to Be Answered": (1) There are no differences among the faculty status groups (i.e., non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic admin­ istrators) with respect to the variables included in the questionnaire; and college groups (2) There are no differences among the (i.e., Liberal Arts, Social Science, and Natural Science) with respect to the variables included in the questionnaire. Analysis of the data was done in two steps. First, a three-way analysis of variance for repeated measures technique was applied to group means to detect whether statistically significant differences existed between the means. The assumptions met in theoretically justifying the analysis and F test in this study design are: (1) there is a normal distribution of errors or scores in each popula­ tion, (2 ) there is equal error variance for all treatment populations, and (3) there is statistical independence among the error components (69:378-380). The analysis of variance is accepted as being robust with respect to violation of the first two assumptions. Since the number of subjects in each sample is equal, assumption 2 can be violated without serious risk, regard­ less. Statistical independence among the error components (assumption 3) is very important in using the F test, and is most likely to cause errors in inferences where repeated observations on the same subjects are made. Consequently, although the variance-covariance matrices appeared equal in the analysis of the pilot study data, the Geisser-Greenhouse conservative F test (93:262-263) was employed, as was the conventional F test, in analyzing the repeated measures data. Because mean differences on repeated measures scales (R) were found to be significant or insignificant regardless of whether conservative or conventional F tests were used, and since the conventional test was employed in determining faculty status group (F) mean differences, the degrees of freedom reported in analysis of variance tables (Chapter V) represent those used in conventional tests. The second step in the analysis consisted of deter­ mining the source of statistically significant group mean differences. Scheffe post hoc comparisons were used in contrasting the appropriate means. Summary A description of the nine randomly-selected groups of Michigan State University faculty and academic adminis­ trators participating in the study was presented in this chapter. Procedures used in conducting the pilot study, designing the final instrument, and collecting the data from participants were also described. Finally, the methods employed in statistically analyzing the data, and the ratio­ nale for such techniques, were identified and discussed. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The two statistical techniques used in analyzing the data in this study were a three-way analysis of variiance for repeated measures to determine whether differences existed between or within faculty status and college groups on the eleven measures, and a Scheffe post hoc comparison to deter­ mine in which ways the group responses differed. The analy­ ses were done on a CDC 3600 computer in the Michigan State University Computer Center. The major findings of the anal­ yses are presented in table and graph form as each of the "Questions to Be Answered," and the implied null hypotheses, are reintroduced. An interpretation of the analysis is offered in a later section. Analysis of the Data The first two questions in the "Questions to Be Answered" section of Chapter I focus upon finding sub­ stantial agreement and/or disagreement among faculty status groups (i.e., non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators), and among faculty and adminis­ trators affiliated with Liberal Arts, Social Science, or 141 142 Natural Science colleges, regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in facultypersonnel and/or curriculum-related decision-making m a t ­ ters. Four types of decision-making matters were listed: specific personnel matters personnel matters matters (Repeated Measure 1), general (Repeated Measure 2), specific curriculum (Repeated Measure 3), and general curriculum matters (Repeated Measure 4) (see "Definition of Terms" section, Chapter I, for definitions of these matters). Respondents were asked to select, from among the following four response alternatives, the one which most closely represented their personal opinions concerning how much involvement under­ graduate students should have in the respective matters: "Strong Involvement" (as many students as faculty involved, with students having voting privileges); "Moderate Involve­ ment" (fewer students than faculty involved, with students having voting privileges); "Advisory Involvement" (students involved in advisory capacities only, without voting privi­ leges) ; and "No Involvement" (students not involved in either advisory or voting capacities). The implied null hypotheses associated with these questions are: Ho-^: There are no differences in perceptions of faculty status groups regarding the extent to which under­ graduate students should be involved in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. 143 Hc^: There are no differences in perceptions of college groups regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. Ho^: There are no differential perceptions within the sample groups regarding the extent to which under­ graduate students should be involved in specific personnel matters, general personnel matters, specific curriculum matters, and/or general curriculum matters. As can be seen in Table 5.1, the analysis of vari­ ance found no significant interaction effects (at the .05 level) among the responses of participants grouped on the basis of non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, or academic administrator status (F) and when the participants were grouped according to affiliation with the three colleges (C). Nor were significant interaction effects operating within the faculty status group— repeated measures college group— repeated measures college— repeated measures (FR), (CR), and faculty status— (FCR) variables. Tests for various main effects determined that there were no sig­ nificant differences among responses of the three college groups at the .05 level, but differences were found to be significant among the same subjects when they were assembled into faculty status groups. Statistically significant dif­ ferences also occurred at the .05 level within the groups across the four repeated measures (R) in this variable set. 144 Table 5.1 Analysis of Variance Table for Variable Set I Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Squares 20.343 1. 265 3. 586 153.755 134 2 2 4 126 10.1716 .6324 .8966 1.2203 29.665 0.199 0.382 2. 701 52.027 405 3 6 6 12 378 9.8883 .0331 .0636 .2250 .1376 263.923 539 Between F C FC S :FC Within R FR CR FCR SR:FC Total F 8.33* 0.52 0.73 71.86** 0. 24 0.47 1.63 *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .05 level using both conserva­ tive and conventional F tests. Based upon this analysis, the null hypothesis anticipating no differences among college groups regarding the extent to which undergraduate students should be in­ volved in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters (H02 ) is accepted, but those hypothesizing no differences among faculty status groups the measures (Ho-^) and within nested groups across (Ho^) are rejected. The mean scores of faculty status and college groups on the four repeated measures are reported in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, respectively. The lower quantitative mean values reflect more favorably upon the actual involvement of 145 Table 5.2 Faculty Status Group Means— Repeated Measure Matrix for Variable Set I Faculty Groups R1 R' R- R4 2.759 2.495 2.327 2.117 2.425 3.185 2.817 2.705 2.508 2. 804 3.180 2.920 2.788 2. 562 2.863 3.042 2.744 2.607 Repeated Measures 2.396 Table 5.3 College Group Means— Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set I College Groups Ri R' R- R4 3.112 2.825 2.648 2.413 2.749 2.956 2. 664 2. 588 2. 324 2.633 3.057 2.743 2. 585 2.450 2.709 3.042 2.744 2.607 Repeated Measures 2. 396 146 undergraduates— as defined by the number of students involved and their voting or non-voting status— in the decision-making matters. Since statistically significant differences occurred only among the faculty status groups and within groups across the measures, graphic representa­ tion of the data in Table 5.2 is presented in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 to facilitate interpretation. The plotted lines in both profiles are theoretically parallel because the analy­ sis of variance determined no significant interaction effects between faculty status or college group means and the repeated measures. Consequently, any perceived inter­ actions are the result of chance fluctuations. Scheffe post hoc comparisons (see Appendix E, Table 7.1) of the data profiled in Figure 5.1 identified no significant differences at the .05 level between the mean scores of the academic administrators (F^) and tenured (F2 ) faculty group on the measures in this variable set. Statistically significant differences were found, however, in comparisons between the tenured faculty and non-tenured faculty (F^) , and between the administrators and the non- tenured faculty. administrators The combined scores of tenured faculty and {F ^ + F^) also differed significantly from the non-tenured means, whereas combining the latter group with either tenured faculty or administrators produced no significant differences in comparisons with the lone third group. The cerning the source of faculty status group differences con­ extent to which undergraduates should be 3.2 Mean Scores .0 8 6 .4 .2 .0 R2 Repeated Measures Fig. 5.1 Profile of faculty status group means on repeated measures in Variable Set I. Faculty Groups Fig. 5.2 Profile of Variable Set I repeated measures relationships within faculty groups. 148 involved in the selected decision-making matters is con­ cluded to exist in the substantially lower mean scores of non-tenured faculty as contrasted with those of tenured faculty and academic administrators. Scheffe comparisons of Variable Set I mean scores within groups (see Appendix E, Table 7.2) demonstrated that the differences between responses to student involvement in specific personnel matters matters (R^) and general personnel (R2 ) were significant at the .05 level, as were the differences between involvement in specific curriculum matters (R3 ) and general curriculum matters (R4 ) . Similar differences were found in perceptions about students par­ ticipating in specific personnel matters as contrasted with specific curriculum matters, and in general personnel ma t ­ ters as opposed to general curriculum matters. Statisti­ cally significant differences also occurred at the .05 level in combined comparisons of specific and general personnel matters (R-^ + R 2) with curriculum matters (R^ + R 4 ) , and between specific personnel/curriculum matters general personnel/curriculum matters (R-^ + R 3 ) and (R2 + R 4 ) . The results of this analysis indicate that faculty members and academic administrators feel undergraduate stu­ dents should have greater involvement, in terms of numbers of participants and voting status, in curriculum-related as opposed to personnel matters. It also appears that faculty and administrators feel undergraduates should have greater involvement in determining general guidelines or 149 policies than in decisions related to specific personnel and/or curriculum issues. Questions 3 and 4 listed in the "Questions to Be Answered" section refer to whether there is substantial agreement and/or disagreement among the three faculty status groups, or the three college groups, with respect to two controversial issues: the extent to which undergraduate students are qualified to participate in personnel or curriculum-related decision-making matters, and the per­ ceived roles of faculty members in the same matters. The scales of statements expressed sentiments relative to the qualifications of undergraduate students to participate in personnel-related decision-making matters (Repeated Measure 5), qualifications of undergraduate students to participate in curriculum-related matters (Repeated Measure 6 ), faculty roles in personnel-related matters (Repeated Measure 7), and faculty roles in curriculum-related matters sure 8 ). (Repeated Mea­ Respondents were asked to indicate which of five response alternatives, ranging from "Strongly Agree" through "Strongly Disagree," most closely reflected the extent of their agreement with the respective statements. The implied null hypotheses associated with these questions are: Ho^: There are no differences in perceptions of faculty status groups regarding the extent to which under­ graduate students are qualified to participate, or the perceived roles of faculty members, in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. 150 Ho, There are no differences in perceptions of college groups regarding the extent to which undergraduate students are qualified to participate, or the per­ ceived roles of faculty members, in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. Ho„: There are no differential perceptions within the sample groups regarding the extent to which under­ graduate students are qualified to participate in personnel and curriculum-related matters, or regarding perceptions of faculty roles in such matters. The results of an analysis of variance for scales comprising Variable Set II are presented in Table 5.4. The analysis determined that no significant interaction effects (at the .05 level) were operating between faculty status and college group membership variables, nor was there any sub­ stantial interaction within faculty status— repeated m e a ­ sures, college— repeated measures, and faculty status-college— repeated measures combined variables. The tests for main effects evidenced no differences, statistically significant at the .05 level, among the three college groups. Thus, Ho^ was accepted. Significant differences at the .05 level were recorded, however, among the three faculty status groups across the repeated measures and within all groups across the measures, causing Ho^ and HOg to be rejected. 151 Table 5.4 Analysis of Variance Table for Variable Set II Source Between F C FC S :FC Within R FR CR FCR SR:FC Total Sum of Squares F Df Mean Squares 15.865 10.982 4.558 202.333 134 2 2 4 126 7.8425 5.4908 1.1395 1.6058 4. 88 * 3.42 0.71 13.198 1. 598 1. 524 2. 246 98.006 405 3 6 6 12 378 4.3992 .2664 .2541 .1872 .2593 16.97* 1.08 0.98 0.72 350.130 539 ♦Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .05 level using both conservative and conventional F tests. Faculty status and college group means are presented in Tables 5.5 and 5.6. The statements included in the first two scales were expressed in such a fashion to suggest that undergraduates are either qualified or not qualified, in particular respects, to participate in the decision-making matters. The statements in the latter two scales had ref­ erence to relatively favorable or unfavorable implications for decision-making based upon faculty participation. Lower mean scores thus represented greater group agreement with the relatively favorable expressions of student qualifica­ tions and unfavorable implications for faculty participation. 152 Table 5.5 Faculty Groups Faculty Status Group Means— Repeated Measure Matrix for Variable Set II Rc r5 r6 r7 2.710 2.312 2. 676 2.476 2.543 3.083 2.765 2.844 2.782 2.868 3. 226 2.733 3.009 2.762 2.932 3.006 2.603 2.843 Repeated Measures 2.673 Table 5.6 College Group Means— Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set II College Groups Rc Re R' Rj 3.035 2.651 2.907 2. 756 2.837 2 .860 2.491 2. 560 2.431 2.586 3.123 2. 667 3.062 2.833 2.921 3.006 2.603 2.843 Repeated Measures 2.673 153 Higher means evidenced disagreement with the unfavorable statements regarding student qualifications and favorable implications for faculty participation. Graphic profiles of the faculty mean scores, both across and within the repeated measures scales in this variable set, are presented in Figures 5.3 and 5.4. As was the case with the previous analysis, the plotted lines in these profiles are theoretically parallel because of an absence of significant interaction effects, either across or within groups. Any perceived interactions are concluded to represent chance fluctuations. Results of Scheffe post hoc comparisons (see Appendix E, Table 7.1) of faculty status group responses (Figure 5.3) found that no significant differences existed between the mean scores of non-tenured faculty tenured faculty (F-^) and (F2 ) , or between tenured faculty and aca­ demic administrators (F3 ) , at the .05 level. The differ­ ences in mean scores between the non-tenured faculty and academic administrator groups, however, were found to be statistically significant. Contrasts between pairs of groups with means from the third remaining group found statistically significant differences only between the tenured faculty/academic administrator combination (F2 + F 3 ) and non-tenured faculty (F-^) . Since the (F-^ + f 2 )— 2F 3 con­ trast was not found to be statistically significant .05 level) (at the it is concluded that the source of differential perceptions about faculty roles and about student .0 3.0 Scores 3.2 8 .6 Mean Scores Mean .2 .4 .2 Rc R- 2.8 r8 R^ 2.6 2.4 2.2 .0 2.0 R R R R Repeated Measures Fig. 5.3 Profile of faculty status group means on repeated measures in Variable Set II. F 1 F 2 F 3 Faculty Groups Fig. 5.4 Profile of Variable Set II repeated measures relationships with­ in faculty groups. 155 qualifications to participate in the academic decision­ making matters is primarily due to substantially different opinions held by non-tenured faculty and academic adminis­ trators, with tenured faculty opinions more closely resem­ bling those of the administrators. Contrasting the mean scores of all groups on the four repeated measures in Variable Set II (Figure 5.4) resulted in finding considerable differences of opinion regarding the perceived qualifications of undergraduate students to participate in these academic matters, but no substantial disparity in perceptions of faculty roles Appendix E, Table 7.2). (see Responses to those items concerning the extent to which undergraduates are qualified to be in­ volved in personnel matters (R^) as compared to their involvement in curriculum matters (Rg) were significantly different at the .05 level, but opinions about faculty roles in such matters significant. (R-y - Rg) were not found to be statistically Contrasts between student qualifications and faculty roles in personnel matters (Rg - R^) did not elicit significantly different responses from the participants, nor did the comparison of opinions about student qualifications and faculty roles in curriculum matters (Rg - R g ) . The Scheffe analysis of combined contrasts between the student qualifications (Rg + Rg) and faculty role variables (R7 + Rg) determined no substantial differences of opinion regarding these concepts, but responses to items related to student qualifications and faculty roles in personnel matters 156 (R5 + R 7 ) did differ significantly from the combined re ­ sponses to items about student qualifications and faculty roles in curriculum-related matters (Rg + R g ) . The results of these comparisons indicate that widely divergent opinions regarding the extent to which undergraduate students are perceived to be qualified for participation in the respective decision-making matters is the source of the significant F value in the original analysis of variance. Questions 5 and 6 of the "Questions to Be Answered" in this study focus upon whether substantial agreement and/or disagreement exists among faculty status or college group perceptions of consequences likely to occur as a result of undergraduate students having voting privi­ leges on decision-making bodies considering personnel and curriculum-related matters. Three scales of statements expressed possible effects upon undergraduate students (Repeated Measure 9), upon faculty (Repeated Measure 10), and upon the general university community Measure 11). (Repeated Respondents were asked to mark one of five response alternatives, ranging from "Very Likely" through "Very Unlikely," as indicating the extent to which they felt the condition or consequence described in the statement is likely to result from the specified undergraduate in­ volvement. The implied null hypotheses associated with these questions are: 157 Ho^: There are no differences in perceptions of faculty status groups regarding the extent to which pos­ sible consequences are likely to occur as a result of undergraduate involvement in personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters. Ho : O There are no differences in perceptions of college groups regarding the extent to which possible con­ sequences are likely to occur as a result of under­ graduate involvement in personnel and curriculumrelated decision-making matters. Ho : y There are no differential perceptions within the sample groups regarding the anticipated effects upon undergraduate students, upon faculty, or upon the general university community resulting from un­ dergraduate involvement in personnel and curriculumrelated decision-making matters. The results of the analysis of variance for scales included in this third variable set are presented in Table 5.7. Once again, there are no significant interaction effects between faculty status and college groups, or within the combined faculty status— repeated measures, college— repeated measures, and faculty status— college— repeated measures variables. The tests for main effects found statistically significant differences, at the .05 level, among the three faculty status groups and within all groups across the repeated measures. ate implied null hypotheses Thus, the appropri­ (Ho^ and Ho^) were rejected. 158 Table 5.7 Analysis of Variance Table for Variable Set III Source F Sum of Squares Df Mean Squares 14.512 3.680 2.162 127.389 134 2 2 4 126 7.2562 1.8402 0.5405 1.0110 7.18* 1.82 0.53 11.776 0.244 0.402 0. 578 19.101 270 2 4 4 8 252 5.8879 .0609 .1006 .0723 .0758 77. 68** 0.80 1.33 0.95 179.845 404 Between F C FC S :FC Within R FR CR FCR SR: FC Total *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .05 level using both conserva­ tive and conventional F tests. The implied null hypothesis pertaining to no differences in perceptions of college groups (Hog) was accepted, as signif­ icant differences were not found among these three groups at the .05 level. The faculty status group mean scores, and those of the college groups, across repeated measures in Variable Set III are reported in Tables 5.8 and 5.9, with the former group means being graphically represented in Figures 5.5 and 5.6. The lower mean scores were computed for groups perceiv­ ing more favorable than unfavorable consequences as likely to result from undergraduates having voting membership in 159 Table 5.8 Faculty Status Group Means— Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set III F 1 F2 F3 R9 R 10 r11 2. 427 2. 394 2. 773 2.531 2.751 2.706 3. 038 2.831 2. 832 2 .868 3.262 2.987 2.670 2.656 3.024 Repeated Measures Table 5.9 College Group Means— Repeated Measures Matrix for Variable Set III R Rr 0) ft C, 3 1 O >-) o C0 0) rH H C 8 10 R 11 2.748 2.797 3. 080 2.875 2.536 2.478 2.942 2. 652 2.726 2.693 3.051 2.823 2.670 2.656 3.024 3 Repeated Measures .s\ Rn 2 Mean Scores .0 10 8 .6 160 .4 .2 .0 F Repeated Measures Fig. 5.5 Profile of faculty status group means on repeated measures in Variable Set III. F F Faculty Groups Fig. 5.6 Profile of Variable Set III repeated measures relationships within faculty groups. 161 bodies considering personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters. The plotted lines in the profiles are thought to be parallel since no significant interaction effects were found in the analysis of variance. Scheffe post hoc comparisons between the pairs of group means profiled in Figure 5.5 (see Appendix E, Table 7.1) determined that non-tenured faculty (F^) have substan­ tially different perceptions of likely consequences result­ ing from student involvement than do tenured faculty and academic administrators icant differences (F^) . (F2 ) No statistically signif­ (at the .05 level) between the latter two groups were identified. Additional comparisons between combinations of groups found that the mean scores of nontenured faculty differed significantly from the combined means of tenured faculty and academic administrators, and the administrators' scores differed significantly from the combined means of the other two groups. As was the case in previous analyses, the source of differences among the faculty status groups occurred in contrasts between opinions held by non-tenured faculty mem­ bers and those of both tenured faculty and academic adminis­ trators. The non-tenured faculty group perceived substan­ tially more favorable consequences as likely to result from undergraduate involvement in the decision-making matters than did either of the other group representatives. Within-group comparisons (see Appendix E, Table 7.2) across the three scales or measures in Variable Set III 162 determined that faculty members and academic administrators perceived favorable consequences of undergraduate involve­ ment upon the general university community (R^) as consid­ erably less likely than favorable effects upon students or faculty (R^q ) • (Rg) The differences between anticipated effects upon the university community and the likelihood of favorable effects upon students and faculty, considered either as separate or combined variables in comparison with the former, were significant at the .05 level. Any differ­ ences of opinions relative to likely favorable or unfavor­ able effects upon students, as contrasted with effects upon the faculty, were statistically insignificant. Interpretation of the Data The analysis of variance procedures used to examine the data in this study yielded consistent results from all three variable sets. First of all, there were no signif­ icant interaction effects in any of the analyses, either between faculty status and college groups, or between the groups and the eleven scales or repeated measures to which they responded. This suggests that the differences in means found among individuals representing the various status groups of faculty are good estimates of expected differences among faculty, irrespective of their particular college group affiliation. The fact that interaction effects did not occur within the groups across repeated measures suggests that the mean differences reported on specific 163 measures would be reasonable to expect from similar groups of subjects, regardless of treatment effects associated with other measures in the variable set or from particular fac­ ulty status or college group membership. Secondly, statistically significant differences among mean scores of faculty status groups were identified in each of the three analyses, but significant differences of opinion were not found in the responses when participants were grouped according to their affiliation with Liberal Arts, Social Science, or Natural Science colleges. Fur­ thermore, the relationship among responses of non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators was remarkably similar in all post hoc comparisons. This factor will be discussed at greater length in later sections of this chapter. Third, significant differences of opinion did occur among responses to various scales of items in each of the variable sets. This was not surprising since each repeated measure pertained to a separate issue within the broader realm of student participation in academic governance. Of particular consequence, however, are the perceptions of the respondents regarding the comparative issues. These percep­ tions were treated by means of paired and combined post hoc comparisons, the interpretations of which will also be offered in subsequent sections. The purpose of incidental or post hoc comparisons is to explore data which previous analyses of variance and F 164 tests have found to be statistically significant, with the intent of finding the source and explaining the meaning of differential effects. Since significant differences were identified between the means of faculty status groups on the same measures, and between measures themselves, the Scheffe post hoc comparison technique was employed in contrasting appropriate group means. Values for these comparisons, and an indication of those statistically significant at the .05 level, are presented in Appendix E. The following comments are presented in the context of differences noted in analy­ ses of separate variable sets. Student Involvement in the Selected Academic Matters The first set of variables consisted of a list of four types of academic decision-making matters: personnel matters specific (those pertaining to appointment, promo­ tion, and evaluation of individual faculty and administra­ tors) , general personnel matters (referring to establishing overall policies or guidelines for appointing, promoting and evaluating such personnel), specific curriculum matters (having to do with individual courses or degree programs), and general curriculum matters (establishing overall poli­ cies or guidelines in curriculum areas). Respondents were asked to indicate, by means of a four-item Likert-type scale, the extent to which they felt undergraduate students should be involved in action taken on each matter in formal, decision-making sessions. 165 Significantly different responses were received which indicated representatives of various faculty status populations hold somewhat dissimilar opinions relative to these issues. All participants felt undergraduates should be involved in varying degrees, depending upon the partic­ ular decision-making matter. These expressions of opinion were concluded to be basically unaffected by the respon­ dent's affiliation with a particular type of college, since no significant differences were found between the mean scores of individuals from groups of Liberal Arts, Social Science, or Natural Science colleges. Scheffe post hoc comparisons of faculty status group mean scores determined that non-tenured faculty members were substantially more receptive to undergraduate students being involved in those personnel and/or curriculum-related decision-making matters included in this study than were either tenured faculty or academic administrators. The profile of means demonstrated that the non-tenured faculty felt undergraduates should have more involvement in all four matters than did participants from the other two groups. Although the academic administrators appear slightly less receptive to student involvement in the matters than tenured faculty, the actual differences between these mean scores were found to be statistically insignificant. And when the responses from these two groups were combined as if repre­ sentative of a singular population, the mean scores did differ significantly from those of non-tenured faculty. 166 Concerning the question of numbers and voting status of undergraduate students involved in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters, relatively receptive opinions held by non-tenured faculty contrast sharply with those held by tenured faculty members and academic administrators. This factor is concluded to be the principle source of the differences among faculty status groups noted in Table 5.1. This is not to suggest, however, that the partici­ pants viewed undergraduate involvement as equally favorable or unfavorable in the various decision-making matters. The analysis of variance and post hoc comparisons of mean scores demonstrated that quite the contrary is true. Regardless of faculty or college group affiliation, the respondents favored a significantly greater role for students in estab­ lishing overall guidelines or policies affecting the person­ nel status of faculty and administrators than they did for student involvement in decisions concerning the appointment, promotion, or evaluation of individual faculty members and administrators. Similarly, they were much less receptive to student involvement in decision-making sessions regarding specific courses or degree programs than they were to under­ graduate participation in determining general curriculumrelated policies or guidelines. The combined comparisons revealed that subjects were significantly more responsive to student participation in curriculum-related decisions as contrasted with personnel decisions, and that they favored greater student participation in defining general policies 167 and guidelines than in specific personnel and curriculum matters. These findings were not particularly surprising in light of public expressions of opinion in the literature (Chapter I I ) . Greater attention will be focused on impli­ cations of these results in the "Discussion" section of Chapter VI. Student Qualifications and Faculty Roles The second set of variables about which this study was concerned has to do with faculty and administrator perceptions of undergraduate student qualifications to be involved in faculty personnel matters or curriculum-related matters, and perceptions of faculty roles in personnel matters or curriculum matters. Respondents were asked to select, from among five Likert-type response alternatives, the one which most closely reflected the extent of their agreement with the expressed statements concerning the four variables. The opinions recorded by subjects were found to be significantly different when faculty status group means were compared, but not so among college groups. The analysis of variance also determined that substantial disagreement existed within the entire sample in responses to items in the four different scales. The comparatively low mean scores of the non-tenured faculty group indicated that they tended to agree— more than did either of the other groups— with those statements 168 intended to reflect favorably upon students' qualifications to participate in the decision-making matters, and with those expressing relatively unfavorable implications for faculty participation in the same decisions. As a matter of fact, the differences between the mean scores of nontenured faculty and administrators were statistically sig­ nificant, while the contrasts between non-tenured and tenured faculty, or between tenured faculty and administra­ tors were statistically insignificant. Although the means of the two faculty groups did not differ at the .05 level of significance, it is meaningful to note that tenured fac­ ulty opinions appeared to more closely resemble those of academic administrators than those held by non-tenured fac­ ulty. This observation was substantiated when the combined tenured faculty/administrator means were found to be statis­ tically different from the non-tenured group means, though no significant differences occurred when the two faculty groups were combined and contrasted with the administrators' responses. Scheffe comparisons of mean scores across the four repeated measures resulted in identifying discrepant opin­ ions about student qualifications in the respective matters, but not about the roles of faculty. Whereas the modestly different reactions to items concerning faculty roles in personnel and curriculum matters were attributed to chance factors, perceptions of the extent to which undergraduates are qualified to be involved in personnel matters differed 169 significantly from those regarding students' qualifications to participate in curriculum-related matters. The fact that the subjects felt undergraduates are better qualified to be involved in curriculum as opposed to personnel decisions is consistent with their thinking that the students should have greater involvement in curriculum rather than personnel mat­ ters (as identified in the earlier analysis). The only other contrast found statistically signif­ icant involved the combined mean scores of items relating to student qualifications and faculty roles in personnel m at ­ ters as compared with the combined mean responses to state­ ments about student qualifications and faculty roles in curriculum matters. The results lend support to the conten­ tion that differences of opinion among faculty and adminis­ trators exist, not between the issues of student qualifica­ tions to participate as opposed to faculty roles in these academic matters, but within the context of the types of decision-making matters themselves— i.e., curriculum-related as opposed to personnel issues. And within this context, the more specific question of the extent to which undergrad­ uates are qualified to participate in either supercedes the question of faculty roles as a source of the divergent opinions. Anticipated Effects of Student Involvement The last set of variables had reference to a famil­ iar theme in discussions of student participation— whether 170 relatively positive or negative consequences are likely to result from undergraduates being afforded decision-making responsibilities in academic matters. A list of statements described possible effects upon students, faculty, and the general university community. alternatives, From among five response the subjects were asked to select that which most closely represented how likely they felt the conditions described in the statements would result from an "agreed upon number of undergraduates" having "voting privileges on departmental, college, and all-university decision-making bodies considering faculty personnel and curriculum-related m at ters." As was true with the previous sets of variables, statistically different responses were received from fac­ ulty status groups and across the repeated measures. Basic agreement among the three college groups was again recorded. Post hoo analyses of mean differences determined that non-tenured faculty perceived more favorable conse­ quences as likely to result from the prescribed student involvement than did either the tenured faculty or academic administrators. Although contrasts between the administra­ tor's and tenured faculty group means did not attain sta­ tistical significance at the .05 level, comparisons between combined scores evidenced that when tenured faculty opinions were joined with those expressed by either non-tenured faculty or administrators, the resulting contrast with the remaining group was significant. That is to say, tenured 171 faculty perceptions of likely consequences tended to approx­ imate a middle ground between those expressed by non-tenured faculty and administrators, though somewhat more related to those of the latter. Thus, the source of differential opinions among respondent groups was primarily attributed to academic administrators anticipating relatively unfavor­ able consequences from student involvement as contrasted with the likely effects anticipated by non-tenured faculty members. The distribution of mean scores across the three repeated measures clearly reflected the participants' think­ ing that likely consequences affecting the general univer­ sity community would be considerably more unfavorable than those affecting undergraduates or faculty. The absence of significant mean differences between responses to items on the latter two scales suggests that likely consequences of student involvement would not have any more of a positive (or negative) effect upon undergraduates than they would upon faculty members. Summary The results of data analyses presented in this chapter indicate that Michigan State University non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrators share somewhat dissimilar opinions on several issues relating to undergraduate student involvement in personnel and curriculumrelated decision-making matters. Though virtually identical 172 views were received from faculty and administrators repre­ senting various groups of academic colleges, it is clear that some issues are considerably more controversial than others. With respect to the faculty status groups, nontenured faculty opinions differed from those held by aca­ demic administrators in each set of variables, and differed more often than not from those expressed by tenured faculty members. For example, non-tenured faculty felt undergrad­ uates should be more involved in all of the academic mat­ ters than did either of the other two groups. They also perceived more favorable consequences stemming from student participation than did tenured faculty and administrators. While the two faculty groups did not reflect substantially different views on the combined undergraduate qualifica­ tions— faculty role scales, the same could not be said about opinions held by administrators when contrasted with those of non-tenured faculty. The latter group agreed more with those statements reflecting favorably upon student quali­ fications and with those expressing relatively unfavorable implications about faculty roles in the decision-making m at ters. Tenured faculty members did not respond to the items in a fashion significantly different from the academic admin­ istrators. Although the administrators' responses appeared slightly and consistently more conservative, particularly regarding anticipated consequences of student involvement, 173 any differences in the average scores were the result of chance fluctuation. When mean scores of two groups were combined and contrasted with those of the third group, it was found that the tenured faculty/administrator combination always dif­ fered from the non-tenured group, the combined non-tenured faculty/administrator means never differed from those of the tenured faculty, and the means of the two faculty groups differed from those of the administrative group only with respect to perceptions of likely consequences resulting from student participation. In the latter case, administrators appeared more apprehensive about relatively favorable results of such student involvement. The general study sample felt that undergraduates should be less involved in decision-making matters of a faculty personnel nature as opposed to being involved in curriculum-related issues. Student participation in estab­ lishing general personnel guidelines and policies was more favorably received than was having students participate in determining individual faculty appointments, promotions, and evaluations. The same held true for curriculum issues as the respondents reflected less favorably upon undergrad­ uate involvement in matters dealing with specific courses and degree programs than in helping to determine more gen­ eral curriculum-related policies and guidelines. The question of faculty roles in personnel matters did not elicit substantially different responses than did 174 those items pertaining to faculty roles in curriculum matters. In responding to statements relating to student qualifications, however, the faculty and administrators thought undergraduates are much better prepared to partic­ ipate in curriculum matters than they are to participate in making decisions about personnel concerns. And when the mean scores from student qualifications scales were combined with the more moderate responses to faculty roles concerns, the resulting contrast showed opinions still heavily weighed in favor of student involvement in curriculum-related rather than personnel matters. The participants in the study did not perceive that likely results of undergraduate involvement would have any more beneficial or detrimental effects upon students than upon faculty members. Anticipated consequences affecting the general university community, however, were thought to be comparatively less favorable. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose, objectives, and research design of this study are summarized in this chapter. Conclusions, discus­ sion, and recommendations are based upon the results of the study. Summary The practice of involving undergraduate students in governance affairs of American colleges and universities, though not a recent phenomenon, has gained considerable credibility and been an issue commanding much attention among educators in the last decade. Student participation in making decisions related to non-academic and extracurric­ ular activities has long existed in many institutions. Pre­ vious to the last few years, however, shools like Antioch, Bennington, Goddard, and Sarah Lawrence were among those unique in offering opportunities for undergraduates to become formally involved in determining educational policies and procedures. Generated, in part, out of changing concepts 175 176 of student-institutional relationships, and sustained by eloquent voices or dominant actions of educational, polit­ ical, and student spokesmen, the new movement has attempted to engage undergraduates in decision-making responsibilities which, heretofore, have rested almost exclusively within the domain of faculty or administrators. The university’s problem of defining appropriate student roles in academic matters is complicated by the apparent inability of educators to agree on such issues as the types of decisions in which students should be involved, the roles of faculty members in comparable m at ters, and the perceived consequences of greater student participation. Furthermore, available research studies have not adequately determined whether disagreements occur between various cam­ pus constituencies or whether differential perceptions are unique to particular decision-making matters. The purpose of this exploratory study has been to identify and describe how Michigan State University faculty and academic administrators perceive certain issues related to undergraduate student involvement in selected academic decision-making matters. More specific objectives included determining whether substantial agreements and/or disagree­ ments exist among those having different faculty statuses, or among those affiliated with different types of academic colleges, with respect to the following concerns: 1. the extent to which undergraduates should be involved in faculty personnel and/or curriculumrelated decision-making matters; 177 2. the extent to which students are perceived to be qualified to participate in personnel and/or curriculum matters; 3. the perceptions of faculty roles in personnel and/or curriculum matters; and 4. the extent to which various consequences of undergraduate involvement are likely to affect students, faculty, and/or the general university community. An effort was also made to ascertain the extent of agreement among all participants regarding particular issues within each of these principle concerns. The subjects asked to participate in the study were randomly selected representatives of non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and academic administrator populations within groups of MSU colleges identifiably oriented toward Liberal Arts, Social Science, or Natural Science intellec­ tual disciplines. The instrument designed for use in this study consisted of eleven scales of items. The first four scales pertained to undergraduate student involvement in personnel and curriculum-related matters. The second four scales related to student qualifications and faculty roles in such matters. The last three scales concerned antic­ ipated effects of student participation upon students, faculty, and the general university community. Collected and usable data was statistically treated by analyses of variance for repeated measures to detect any significant 178 differences between group means. Scheffe post hoc compar­ isons were used to determine in which ways the group responses differed. The following were among the major findings of this study: 1. There was substantial disagreement among faculty status groups concerning the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in selected personnel and/or curriculum-related decision-making matters. a. Non-tenured faculty members indicated that under­ graduates should have significantly greater involve­ ment in personnel and/or curriculum matters than did either the tenured faculty members or the academic administrators. b. Tenured faculty and academic administrators were in basic agreement regarding the extent to which under­ graduates should be involved in these matters. 2. There was substantial agreement among the college groups concerning the extent to which undergraduate students should be involved in the selected personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. 3. Participants expressed more favorable opinions about undergraduate student involvement in certain decision­ making matters as opposed to others. a. The participants indicated that undergraduates should have significantly greater involvement in 179 in curriculum-related matters than in those having to do with faculty personnel questions. b. Respondents favored significantly greater involve­ ment by undergraduates in establishing general policies affecting faculty status sonnel matters) (general per­ as contrasted with involvement in issues related to the appointment, promotion, or evaluation of individual faculty members (specific personnel matters). c. Respondents also favored significantly less involve­ ment by undergraduates in issues related to isolated courses or degree programs matters) (specific curriculum as opposed to determining general policies and guidelines related to curricula (general curric­ ulum matters). 4. There was substantial disagreement among the faculty status groups concerning the extent to which undergrad­ uate students are perceived as qualified to be involved in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. a. Non-tenured faculty members perceived undergraduates to be significantly better qualified for involvement in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters than did the academic administrators. b. Tenured faculty perceptions of undergraduates' qual­ ifications for involvement in the matters did not differ substantially with those of non-tenured fac­ ulty or academic administrators, though they were in somewhat greater agreement with the administrator g roup. There was substantial agreement among the faculty status groups concerning the perceptions of faculty roles in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. There was substantial agreement among the college groups concerning the extent to which undergraduates are per­ ceived as qualified for involvement, and perceptions of faculty r oles, in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters. Undergraduate students were perceived by the respondents to be substantially more qualified for involvement in curriculum-related matters than in personnel matters. Perceptions of faculty roles in personnel matters were not substantially different from perceived faculty roles in curriculum-related matters. There was substantial disagreement among the faculty status groups concerning the likelihood of various consequences resulting from undergraduates having voting membership in bodies considering personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters, a. Non-tenured faculty members perceived significantly more favorable consequences as likely to result from the specified undergraduate involvement than did tenured faculty members or academic adminis­ trators . 181 b. Tenured faculty perceptions of likely consequences were not substantially different from those antic­ ipated by academic administrators. 10. There was substantial agreement among the college groups concerning the likelihood of various consequences resulting from undergraduates having voting membership in bodies considering personnel and curriculum-related decision-making matters. 11. The practice of undergraduates having voting membership in bodies considering personnel and curriculum-related matters was perceived as likely to result in differen­ tial effects upon the students, the faculty, and the general university community. a. Respondents indicated that likely consequences affecting the general university community would be significantly less favorable than those thought likely to affect students or faculty. b. The anticipated consequences were perceived as not likely to have any more favorable or unfavorable effects upon students than upon faculty members. Conclusions Like many other American institutions of higher education, Michigan State University has addressed itself in recent years to the question of the appropriate degree of student involvement in university governance proceedings. After two and one-half years of dialog among various campus constituencies, a document entitled Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Government was approved by the Board of Trustees, thus supposedly providing the impetus for formal student representation on most University decision-making bodies and encouraging aca­ demic units to incorporate student views into discussions of all but a few academic matters. Beyond the extensive amount of time afforded to clarifying procedural concerns (i.e., how students would be selected, what population of students would they represent, etc.), the task of defining student roles in academic governance was prolonged by fundamentally different expressions of opinion about a variety of substantive issues. The results of this study provide insight into the following controversial concerns. 1. Differences of opinion among Michigan State University faculty and academic administrators were most prominent among those having differential faculty status than among those representing various academic college groups. Non-tenured faculty members felt that undergraduate students should have greater involvement in the personnel and curriculum matters, and perceived more favorable conse­ quences resulting from such student participation, than did either tenured faculty or academic administrators. Their opinions also differed from those held by the administrators with respect to the set of variables concerning student qualifications for participation, and faculty roles, in the decision-making matters. Since a post hoc analysis 183 determined that all respondents shared similar opinions about faculty roles in the matters, it is assumed that differential perceptions between non-tenured faculty and administrators on this variable set resulted primarily from the non-tenured group thinking that undergraduates are bet­ ter qualified for participation than did the administrator group. Tenured faculty members and academic administrators were in basic agreement on the three sets of variables. Furthermore, their combined responses differed substantially from those expressed by non-tenured faculty on each of the variable sets. Thus, the source of differential perceptions among faculty status groups is concluded to result from the comparative liberal opinions of non-tenured faculty members. 2. Grouping the respondents according to affilia­ tions with Liberal Arts, Social Science, or Natural Science colleges produced no significant differences in mean score contrasts on any of the variable sets. 3. Michigan State University faculty members and academic administrators favored greater undergraduate stu­ dent involvement in certain "academic" matters as opposed to others. The participants in this study were signif­ icantly more receptive to larger numbers of undergraduates having voting privileges in curriculum-related matters as contrasted with faculty personnel issues. They also pre­ ferred student participation in determining general policies 184 or guidelines in both curriculum and personnel matters rather than granting comparable opportunities for students to influence decisions concerning specific courses and degree programs or individual faculty appointments, promo­ tions, or evaluations. This suggests that the term "academic governance" should be qualified with reference to particular types of academic decision-making matters before an adequate concep­ tualization of faculty opinions about student participation in such matters can be realized. 4. The faculty and administrator respondents per­ ceived undergraduates to be much better prepared or qual­ ified for involvement in curriculum-related issues than in matters pertaining to faculty personnel concerns. No comparably significant distinctions were evident, however, between the perceived roles of faculty members in the two types of ma t t e r s . 5. The respondents perceived that likely conse­ quences of undergraduates having voting privileges in personnel and curriculum decision-making would have more favorable effects upon the specific student and faculty populations than upon the general environment or operational efficiency of the university. The practice of such student involvement was not thought as likely to have any more favorable or unfavorable effects upon students than upon faculty members. 1.85 Discussion The results of this study reinforce the claim that it is inappropriate to offer broad generalizations about the opinions of university "faculty members" toward undergrad­ uate student involvement in "academic governance" concerns. Not only did the opinions of non-tenured faculty at Michigan State University differ substantially from those held by their tenured faculty and academic administrator colleagues, there were obvious differences of opinion among all faculty and administrator participants regarding various issues related to student involvement in the specified academic matters. Non-tenured faculty members were much more receptive to undergraduates having decision-making roles in personnel and/or curriculum-related matters than were tenured faculty and academic administrators. The suggestion made by Gross and Grambsch that students seeking greater decision-making authority "won't receive much support from faculty or admin­ istrators" (65:33) might be qualified to acknowledge rela­ tively greater support would be received from non-tenured faculty than from tenured faculty or college deans and department chairmen. Like Massingill's results (104), higher ranking faculty were found to be no more liberal in their opinions about student participation. As a matter of fact, tenured faculty in this study were considerably more conservative than faculty participants without tenure status, both with respect to the extent to which they perceived 186 undergraduates should be involved in personnel and curric­ ulum matters and in their perceptions of favorable results of such undergraduate student participation. The academic administrators appeared equally conservative, if not more so. The results suggest that caution should be exercised in using the term "academic" matters as well. The faculty and administrator participants favored greater undergraduate involvement in curriculum-related matters as contrasted with faculty personnel issues. They were also more reluctant to grant students decision-making responsibilities for action taken on individual faculty promotions, appointments or evaluations, and specific courses or degree requirements, than they were for establishing general personnel or cur­ riculum policies. Though no attempt was made to elicit opinions about students participating in other "academic" or "non-academic" matters, MSU educators clearly favored undergraduate involvement in certain academic matters as opposed to others. These findings are generally consistent with pre­ vious research results and commentaries advocating rela­ tively limited involvement by students in personnel issues (i.e., 38, 57, 97, 104, 110). Bowen (17), Kerlinger Claims made by Mayhew (108), (90), or others noting particular objections to students in curriculum-related matters may not be as reflective of Michigan State faculty opinions. Since a qualitative value cannot accurately be attached to the various accumulated mean scores, it is impossible to 187 determine whether the respondents in this study agree or disagree with the suggestion that "academic affairs" should remain primarily the faculty's responsibility. Nonetheless, the study sample did feel that undergraduates should be afforded less responsibility for personnel than curriculum decisions, and less involvement in decisions affecting individual faculty statuses or courses than in generating overall policies of a personnel or curriculum nature. The mean scores on individual items within the scales were not statistically analyzed and compared because of the unreliability of inferences drawn from such analyses. Examining the distributions, however, may provide some clues as to specific issues which appear most controversial, or those in which greatest receptivity and resistance toward student participation is found. The distribution of mean responses to items in the first variable set (i.e., Person­ nel and Curriculum matters) 7.3. is found in Appendix F, Table The lower mean scores reflect more favorably upon the actual involvement of undergraduates— as defined by the number of students compared to the number of faculty in­ volved, and students being allowed voting status--in the particular matters. With respect to the various personnel issues (scales and R 2 ) , it appeared that the total sample was consider­ ably more receptive to undergraduates rating the teaching effectiveness of specific faculty members (item 6 ) and establishing general guidelines for evaluating teaching 188 (item 11) than any other items in the two scales. Allowing students to participate in determining individual faculty salaries (item 21 ) and developing policies related to fac­ ulty salaries (item 28) met the greatest resistance, with opposition almost as great to students involved in hiring specific faculty lines (item 24) and establishing hiring guide­ (item 9). From among the specific personnel issues (scale R-^) , all three faculty status groups were more favorable to students rating individual faculty (item 6 ) and least receptive to their determining faculty salaries The questions of hiring individual faculty determining salaries (item 21 ). (item 24) and (item 21 ) elicited the most widely dispersed responses from the three groups, while tenured faculty and academic administrators appeared more united in their opposition to the relatively liberal non-tenured opin­ ions regarding student participation in promotions awarding of tenure chairmen (item 7). (item 1 ), (item 2 3), and appointing department Only in rating teaching effectiveness (item 6 ) did academic administrators tend to agree with non-tenured faculty, and their opinions were decidedly more favorable toward undergraduate participation in this matter than were those of the tenured faculty. Each of the three groups favored student involvement in establishing general guidelines for teacher evaluations (item 11 ) from among those identified as general personnel matters (scale R 2 ) and each group was most opposed to student involvement in determining policies regarding salaries (item 28). Again, the tenured faculty were separated from the other two groups in their concern about students' roles in defining teacher evaluation guidelines. The faculty groups were more receptive to students establishing hiring guidelines (item 9), but tenured faculty responses to stu­ dents in appointing department chairmen ulty promotions (item 16) and fac­ (item 20 ) were more closely allied with administrators' opinions. Responses to other items were more widely dispersed among the three groups. Non-tenured faculty opinions evidenced greater receptivity to student involvement in all personnel matters than did those ex­ pressed by tenured faculty and academic administrators. The mean responses to items related to curriculum matters did not vary as much. matters Among the specific curriculum (scale R 3 ) r respondents were relatively less en­ thused about students participating in determining course requirements in degree programs in specific courses (item 26), grading criteria (item 8 ), course objectives and number of credit hours assigned to courses (item 19), (item 12 ). The least resistance was in adding new courses to the cur­ riculum (item 17). In those issues identified as general curriculum matters (scale R ^ ) , the faculty and administra­ tors were most opposed to students being involved in devel­ oping guidelines for degree requirements course credit hours (item 4). (item 18) and They appeared most receptive to student involvement in developing objectives for the 190 university (item 2) and in establishing a university class attendance policy (item 27). Each faculty status group was relatively receptive to students participating in specific decisions affecting the addition of new courses to the curriculum (item 17). Non-tenured faculty were most opposed to their involvement in determining course credit hours (item 12); tenured faculty to their possible involvement in defining course grading criteria (item 8); and administrators to their par­ ticipating in establishing degree requirements (item 26). With the exception of item 12 pertaining to assigning credit hours for courses, tenured faculty and academic administra­ tors' responses tended to be similar and somewhat less encouraging of student participation in the specific curriculum matters than non-tenured faculty. Among the general curriculum m a t te rs , all three groups expressed greater disapproval of students being involved in policy-making related to degree requirements (item 18). Non-tenured faculty and administrators expressed greatest endorsement for student participation in develop­ ing university objectives (item 2), while tenured faculty objected less to their involvement in determining policies related to class attendance to curricula (item 22). (item 27) and adding courses Tenured faculty and administrators tended to be in relative agreement on most of these items, as they had been in the previous set. Non-tenured faculty were more receptive to student participation in each 191 curriculum-related matter than were either of the other two groups. In one respect, these results suggest that Dr. Edward Eddy's advocation of students on "every college and university committee" (208:953) would probably receive mixed reactions from MSU educators. Non-tenured faculty are more likely to agree with his philosophy than would tenured faculty members or academic administrators. Furthermore, arguments against the principle of undergraduates being on "every committee" would more than likely be heard about their involvement in faculty personnel matters as opposed to curriculum issues. And within the realm of personnel and/or curriculum-related concerns, undergraduate involvement in matters affecting the personnel status of individual faculty or particular courses and degree programs would be more alien to the educators than providing opportunities for the students to influence general personnel or curriculum policies. Similar implications are reserved for Hallberg's idea that undergraduates "can and should make fundamental judgements about curriculum and personnel" (68:538). While this study does not answer whether undergraduates should be involved in either, it does demonstrate that MSU educa­ tors are significantly more receptive to their involvement in curriculum-related judgements as opposed to personnel issues. The question of whether students can assume such responsibilities is the next topic for discussion. 192 These survey results lend support to those who perceive undergraduate students to be less qualified for involvement in personnel as contrasted with curriculumrelated matters. That Michigan State faculty members and academic administrators entertain such opinions is consis­ tent with their views that undergraduates should have more limited decision-making roles in personnel than in curric­ ulum issues. A modest examination of responses to individ­ ual items in the scales (see Appendix F, Table 7.4) offers some hints as to possible reasons for such opinions. (The reader is cautioned to remember that statements expressing both relatively favorable and unfavorable implications for student participation were used in the remaining sections of the instrument. Weighted values for favorable statements ranged from 1 for "Strongly Agree" to 5 for "Strongly Dis­ agree," and were reversed for unfavorable statements. Con­ sequently, the lower item means represent greater agreement with favorable statements and disagreement with unfavorable statements. Higher item mean scores represent greater agreement with unfavorable statements and disagreement with favorable statements. Those items interpreted as relatively unfavorable are identified with a number sign [#] adjacent to the number of the item in Appendix F.) On the one hand, the respondents tended to agree that undergraduates have a valuable perspective on teaching effectiveness which should be considered in personnel dis­ cussions (item 45, scale R ^) , that they are not necessarily 193 interested in controlling personnel decisions but seek only a voice in such issues (item 39), and that personnel issues are not too complex to be adequately understood by most undergraduates (item 52). The respondents appeared to have more serious reservations, however, about whether students are sufficiently interested in participating in personnel matters (item 47) and whether they should be afforded the right to help make personnel decisions simply because they are members of the academic community (item 31). They also tended to agree with the ideas that students need not be directly involved in personnel decisions to have their educational needs or goals adequately considered (item 51), and that undergraduates are too transient to be involved in personnel decisions (item 32). Concerning undergraduate qualifications to partic­ ipate in curriculum decisions (Rg), the study sample was relatively insistent in agreeing that the transience of students should not inhibit their participation in cur­ riculum discussions (item 43) and in disagreeing with the concept that students would try to impose their views in such matters (item 29). They also tended to feel that students' perceptions of their own educational needs and goals is sufficient reason for them to be included in curriculum decisions (item 41) and disagreed with the sug­ gestion that students are too idealistic to participate (item 40). The question of undergraduate rights to be involved in curriculum decisions did not elicit a negative 194 response (item 35) as it had when asked in the context of personnel matters. The two items which could be interpreted as contributing to moderate resistance toward undergraduate involvement in curriculum issues were indications that most students would prefer faculty and administrators making these decisions (item 44) and that students are not knowl­ edgeable enough to understand curriculum-related issues (item 48). A brief look at the faculty status group responses may provide hints as to particular issues upon which group differences are most pronounced and further expand upon the conflicting views between personnel and curriculum-related concerns. In keeping with the findings that respondents were significantly more receptive to students being involved in curriculum matters as opposed to personnel issues, it is not startling to see that more favorable implications for under­ graduate participation in curriculum-related matters were perceived by the respective faculty groups. Within scale Rg, each group reflected that the transient nature of students shouldn't inhibit them from contributing to curriculum dis­ cussions (item 43), that undergraduates are not likely to try imposing their views (item 29), that they are not too idealistic in their course expectations to participate in curriculum decisions (item 40), that consideration of stu­ dent views is sufficient reason to include them in such decisions (item 41), and that the issue of student rights 195 should be extended into curriculum decision-making matters (item 35). Of the statements intended to question the extent to which students are perceived as qualified for participation in personnel matters (scale R ^ ) , the three groups generally agreed that undergraduates have a valuable perspective on teaching effectiveness which should be con­ sidered in personnel matters (item 45) and that they seek only a voice, not controlling influence, in such matters (item 39). Representatives of all three faculty groups tended to question the extent of students' ing in personnel matters interest in participat­ (item 47) and agreed that they need not be directly involved in personnel discussions to have their needs and goals adequately considered (item 51). No such uniformly unfavorable implications were perceived by the three groups in responses to statements about curriculum matters, although tenured faculty and academic administrators indicated that students would prefer such decisions being made by educators (item 44) and that most undergraduates are not knowledgeable enough to understand issues relating to curriculum matters (item 48). Besides the differential perceptions just noted, isolated responses to three particular items serve as likely sources of divergent non-tenured faculty/academic adminis­ trator opinions, as well as providing additional insight into why students are perceived as less qualified to par­ ticipate in personnel matters. Academic administrators 196 reflected general agreement with the suggestions that under­ graduates are too transient to be involved in personnel decisions (item 32) and that such issues are too complex to be adequately understood by most students (item 52). tenured faculty disagreed with these statements. Non- The admin­ istrators' disagreement with the idea that undergraduates have the right to be involved in personnel decisions (item 31) was stronger than any other reservation they expressed, while non-tenured faculty had a slight tendency to agree with this concept. No significant differences were found between the opinions of tenured faculty on the total variable set and those by either of the other two groups. Certain statements did appear, however, to produce divergent responses. Non- tenured faculty members thought undergraduates were more qualified for involvement in personnel and curriculum matters than did tenured faculty in each of the fourteen different respects. The non-tenured group was particularly more liberal in their thinking that undergraduates are not too transient to be involved in personnel decisions (item 32), that they are not too idealistic in tneir expectations to be involved in curriculum matters (item 40), that they would not try to impose their views in curriculum issues (item 29), and that students should have the right to par­ ticipate in such matters (item 35). Potential differences of opinion on particular items were less apparent between the tenured faculty and academic 197 administrators. The tenured group appeared somewhat more receptive to student involvement on the basis of their thinking that neither personnel matters (item 52) nor curriculum (item 48) are too complex to be understood by under­ graduates, and that they should be afforded the right to participate in curriculum questions (item 31). On the other hand, administrators tended to feel that undergraduates seek only a voice in personnel matters (item 39) or wouldn't try imposing their views in curriculum matters (item 29), and that they are not too idealistic to participate in curric­ ulum decisions (item 40). No effort is made in this treatise to define any "causal" relationship between the respondents' opinions that undergraduates are better qualified for participation in curriculum than in personnel matters and their opinions that undergraduates should be more involved in curriculum than in personnel matters. It appears, however, that opinions about student qualifications (or a lack thereof) are more closely related to differential perceptions of whether students should participate in the respective matters than are opin­ ions concerning faculty roles since no significant differ­ ences were found in contrasts between perceived faculty roles in curriculum matters and comparable roles in person­ nel issues. In addition, the responses to faculty roles statements generated more favorable than unfavorable impli­ cations for student participation. 198 For example, the MSU educators tended to agree that faculty members are not always the best judges of effective teaching (item 42) and that faculty autonomy in personnel matters often results in decisions based upon vested inter­ ests (item 46). Slightly greater agreement than disagree­ ment was received in response to the suggestion that under­ graduate involvement in personnel decisions is not a threat to faculty "academic freedom" (item 36). The sample did tend to agree that personnel policies and practices are constantly evaluated and modified (item 49) and that faculty should retain exclusive responsibility for personnel matters (item 37), though agreement on the latter idea was very modest. Regarding curriculum m at te rs , the only item which reflected unfavorable implications for student participation concerned faculty losing some basic tenets of "academic free­ dom" if they didn't have primary decision-making authority in curriculum questions (item 33). Otherwise, the respon­ dents tended to feel that responsibility for curriculum matters could be shared by students and faculty (item 34), that faculty should not demand more autonomy in such matters (item 38), and that faculty reluctance to change is a major obstacle in curriculum innovation and reform (item 30). In an apparent contradiction to the concern about relinquishing some degree of "academic freedom," the respondents tended to disagree with the idea that curriculum requirements or changes are best left to faculty who are experts in particular 199 disciplines(item 50). Perhaps they were reacting to faculty being classified as "experts" rather than the more fundamental question of whether curriculum decisions are best left to faculty members. Or perhaps the term "academic freedom" connotes a philosophy or a condition that elicits a peculiarly protective stance regarding curriculum-related issues. In light of the combination of responses, particu­ larly those pertaining to faculty not always being the best judges of effective teaching and sharing responsibility in curriculum questions, the participants in this study did not evidence opinions that they should have greater decision­ making authority in personnel as opposed to curriculum concerns. Nor is there any reason to believe that they perceive their own roles as being the sole decision-making agents in these academic matters. An absence of significant mean differences on the scales should not conceal possibly meaningful differences on particular items. A wide range of opinions between the two faculty groups resulted from the comparatively liberal views of the non-tenured group regarding faculty roles in curriculum matters - (R„). g The most obvious discrepancy concerned the extent of their agreement that curriculum requirements or changes are not best left to faculty 50). (item They also felt stronger about shared responsibility between students and faculty (item 34) and did not appear as worried about faculty relinquishing any "academic freedom" 200 if they didn't assume primary authority in curriculum decision-making (item 33). The most pronounced tenured faculty/academic ad­ ministrator differences existed in responses to personnelrelated issues (Ry). The tenured faculty were relatively more liberal in questioning the extent to which personnel policies and practices are constantly evaluated and modified (item 49) and less apprehensive about a threat to "academic freedom" if undergraduates were involved in personnel deci­ sions (item 36). Administrators expressed greater reserva­ tions about whether faculty members are the best judges of effective teaching (item 42). In addition to the three items on the student qual­ ifications scales previously discussed as likely sources of significantly different non-tenured faculty/academic admin­ istrator opinions, responses to several items about faculty roles are equally probable sources of those divergent views. Non-tenured faculty members were decidedly more liberal than the administrators in their opinions that undergraduate involvement in personnel decisions is not a threat to "aca­ demic freedom" (item 36) that exclusive responsibility for personnel matters need not be retained by faculty (item 37), that students and faculty can share decision-making respon­ sibility in curriculum matters (item 34), and that curriculum- related questions are not necessarily best left to the faculty (item 50). 201 The last set of variables about which this study was concerned had to do with anticipated consequences resulting from undergraduate students having voting priv­ ileges in personnel and curriculum-related decision-making processes. Three series of statements were designed to express conceivable effects upon students, faculty, and the general university community. Analyses of the responses indicated that the faculty and administrators perceived certain consequences as significantly more likely to occur than others, and that substantially different responses were received from the various faculty status groups. Generally, the subjects perceived that results from the suggested student involvement would more likely have favorable effects upon the student and faculty populations than upon the university community. Examination of mean responses to specific items demonstrates that only one relatively unfavorable consequence was thought likely to affect students and faculty, whereas several factors were perceived as likely to have adverse effects upon the aca­ demic community (see Appendix F, Table 7.5). In terms of conceivable effects upon students (Rg), the respondents expressed concern about students spending too much time participating in governance sessions and too little time in academic pursuits (item 71). Any consequences relative to the balance of power being altered to provide controlling influence to students (item 59) or students tending to vote in a collective block (item 68) were thought unlikely to occur. Undergraduates were perceived as likely to develop an appreciation for complexities inherent in decision-making (item 65) and would gain valuable expe­ riences enabling them to assume greater decision-making responsibilities (item 66). More moderate opinions were expressed regarding the formalized decision-making processes becoming more acceptable to most undergraduates (item 57), radical students not becoming spokesmen for the undergrad­ uate population (item 67), reducing feelings of deperson­ alization among students (item 72), and reducing the appeal of the violent-prone minority (item 63). The single unfavorable consequence thought likely to affect faculty members (r ^ q ) concerned potential faculty not being attracted to an institution where students had such an influence in personnel status policies (item 53). On the other hand, respondents seemed to feel that likely benefits would include faculty becoming more knowledgeable about students' needs and concerns (item 58), more opportu­ nities would be available for faculty to respond to student criticisms of their education (item 69), and greater faculty attention would be focused upon the need for frequent evalu­ ation of policies and practices (item 78). They also appeared relatively adamant in their objections to sugges­ tions that faculty would tend to vote in a collective block (item 60) or that they would be abdicating responsibilities for academic decision-making (item 61). Respondents tended to think that faculty prestige would not be lowered (item 54) 203 and that faculty confidence in the undergraduates' would grow (item 62). judgment The concern about faculty not having the time to be involved in such decision-making processes (item 77) was the second most unfavorable consequence, although respondents tended to disagree with the concept. The third classification of possible consequences referred to more general effects upon the campus environment, efficient functioning of academic government, relationships between university constituencies and/or outside sources, and the institution's role. For lack of a better descrip­ tive term, the author has defined such conditions as effects upon the "university community" • The most prevalent unfavorable consequences perceived by the participants as likely to occur were conditions included in this classifi­ cation. More specifically, the respondents tended to think that decisions would be prolonged by acquainting students with the issues (item 70), confusion about university func­ tions and goals would not be lessened (item 7 6), widespread criticism from forces outside the university would be received (item 64), and incidences of student disturbances would not be reduced (item 56). There was a slight tendency to think that more decisions would be made outside formal university channels (item 73), while more accurate appraisal of the effectiveness of educational practices (item 74) and the university becoming an instrument for social or polit­ ical change (item 75) were not thought as being any more 204 likely than unlikely to result. Only three potentially favorable conditions in this classification were felt to be relatively likely, including student/faculty differences would be discussed and possibly reconciled (item 80), under­ graduate curriculum standards and requirements would not be lowered (item 79), and academic departments would become more receptive to change and innovation (item 55). Some similarities did appear among group responses to certain items. Each of the three groups, for example, expressed relative disagreement with the idea that the balance of power would shift to provide controlling influ­ ence to students (item 59), and relative agreement with the notion that undergraduates would become more appreciative of complex decision-making (item 65). Each group perceived the institution becoming less attractive to prospective faculty members (item 53) as the most likely unfavorable consequence affecting faculty. The three groups also tended to view discussion and possible reconciliation of student/faculty differences of opinions (item 80) as the most likely favor­ able effect upon the university community, with the issue of prolonging decisions (item 70) seen as the most likely unfavorable consequence of administrators' (the latter was particularly true responses). Nonetheless, a broad range of reactions to most of the statements provided little wonder that significant differences between group percep­ tions were found. 205 Non-tenured faculty members reflected the most liberal opinions on every item except that having to do with prolonged decisions as a result of acquainting participating students with issues (item 70). Tenured faculty were slightly more reluctant to concede the likelihood of this occurring than were the non-tenured faculty. Regarding anticipated effects upon students, differ­ ential perceptions between the two faculty groups were most apparent on the issues pertaining to undergraduates gaining valuable experiences enabling them to assume greater decision-making responsibilities (item 6), safeguards against radical students becoming spokesmen for the under­ graduate population (item 67), reducing the appeal of the violent-prone minority (item 6 3), students developing an appreciation of complex decision-making (item 65) and the balance of power shifting to allow student control (item 59). Non-tenured faculty opinions concerning the likelihood of students gaining valuable experience and radical students becoming the undergraduates' spokesmen also differed from those held by the academic administrators. The adminis­ trators disagreed even more dramatically with both faculty groups in their thinking that feelings of depersonalization are not likely to be reduced among undergraduates (item 7 2) and that students are likely to spend too much time partic­ ipating (item 71). Faculty status groups also appeared to have differ­ ent perceptions about how student participation would affect 206 t^ie faculty-population. Among the possible issues contrib­ uting to the substantially divergent views, the non-tenured faculty thought it more likely than did either of the other two groups that faculty prestige would not be lowered (item 54), that faculty would not be abdicating decision-making responsibilities (item 61), and that faculty members would have sufficient time to participate in governing processes (item 77). In addition, their opinions appeared notably different from those of administrators with respect to anticipating that faculty members would have more first-hand opportunities to respond to student criticisms (item 69) and that faculty confidence in student judgment would grow (item 62). The administrators appeared more willing than the two other groups to accept the idea that prospective faculty would not be attracted to the institution (item 53) and that faculty members would be abdicating their responsibilities (item 61). The two faculty groups seemed in somewhat greater agreement regarding potential effects upon the university, and both appeared to disagree with the administrators on several concerns. The most pronounced differences resulted from administrators indicating that decisions would be pro­ longed by having to acquaint students with issues (item 70), that the university would become an instrument for social or political change (item 75), and that more accurate appraisal of educational practices is not likely to result (item 74). The latter concern could be a possible source of the 207 differential perceptions between the two faculty groups since non-tenured faculty perceived more accurate appraisal as relatively likely. They also opined that the possibility of more decisions being made outside formal university chan­ nels (item 73) was less likely than did the tenured group. As a matter of fact, this issue was the only one in the last scale in which the opinions of non-tenured faculty and aca­ demic administrators appeared moderately united in opposi­ tion to those held by tenured faculty. In summary, the results of this study imply that an "all-or-nothing" approach to student participation in aca­ demic governance will not be received with favor by Michigan State University faculty members and academic administrators. This is to say, educators are not equally receptive or opposed to undergraduate involvement in all "academic" decision-making matters. Based upon the finding that stu­ dent involvement in personnel issues was considerably more objectionable than was their involvement in curriculumrelated matters, the fact that the "Taylor Report" included areas within which students would be exempted from partici­ pating— most notably those concerning the "distinctively professional rights of the faculty" such as reappointments, promotions, or dismissals— may have been the key to its apparent acceptance by faculty. One might also question the validity of broad claims that faculty or academic administrators are "distrusting" of students' abilities and reasons for wanting to participate, 208 or that they are reluctant to grant decision-making author­ ity to students because of personal fears or self-interests. When viewed in the context of particular academic decisions that must be made, respondents in this study expressed rela­ tive confidence in the capabilities of students to make worthwhile contributions in curriculum decisions. And opinions related to anticipated consequences of student involvement demonstrate that they are not ignorant of potential benefits to be accrued, both affecting undergrad­ uates and themselves, from such student inputs. This is not to suggest, however, that faculty m e m ­ bers and/or academic administrators are willing to share their decision-making responsibilities with undergraduate students. Such an embracing philosophy is misleading in one respect and erroneous in another. On the one hand, some faculty members are more willing to share responsibilities and to encourage student participation than are others. Non-tenured faculty in this study sample reflected much greater receptivity to students being involved in personnel and curriculum decisions than did their tenured colleagues or the administrators. And from the perspective of various types of academic matters included in this survey, one could hardly conclude that the respondents appeared eager to share decision-making authority with undergraduates in personnel questions, particularly those concerning the status of individual faculty members or administrators. 209 Recommendations The all-encompassing question of whether students should be involved in the governing affairs of colleges and universities has been described as being merely "academic" on contemporary campuses, that the real concerns are "how, to what extent, and through what innovations in organization and procedure this involvement can be most expeditiously and effectively achieved" (110, 71). Such an observation is contradictory in that educators may want the extent of stu­ dent participation in some decision-making matters to be so limited that little, if any, constructive student influence in the direction of those decisions would be possible. In this hypothetical situation, the issue would then revert back to the more fundamental question of "whether" students should be involved at all, thus making it not quite so "academic." This study has produced no evidence suggesting that faculty members and academic administrators at Michigan State University think undergraduates should not be involved in academic decision-making matters. Nor can one assume that they necessarily think undergraduates should be in­ volved. Relatively speaking, the subjects agreed that undergraduate students should be allowed greater involvement in curriculum than in personnel matters, and that students are more qualified to help make curriculum decisions than personnel decisions. 210 The critical point is that the task of defining "how much" influence students should have in decision-making actions is a procedural problem and may necessitate respond­ ing to such concerns as how many students will be involved or whether they should be allowed voting privileges. It cannot be assumed that once this procedural stage has been reached, the more substantive question of whether students should be involved at all has been answered and everyone is committed to that principle. With reference to this partic­ ular study, for example, any number of respondents may have indicated a preference for undergraduates having "advisory involvement" in various decision-making matters, not really thinking that students should be involved or that they have a positive contribution to make, but because they thought an experiment in student participation is worth trying or that students "can't do too much damage" if they don't have voting authority. Ultimately, then, the question of whether students should be involved must be answered within the contexts of "how much" authority they will be granted and "why." The latter issue requires much more sophisticated, and possibly longer-range examination, than this study would allow. A variety of testable hypotheses may be generated, however, from the previous discussion of responses to specific items. Admittedly, the statements included in this study do not exhaust the number of controversial issues that could in­ fluence judgments on particular variables. Other researchers 211 may wish to isolate and expand upon the perceptions of faculty regarding students' qualifications, interests, or motives for involvement in policy-making. More thorough examination could certainly be given to attitudes about faculty responsibilities for these, and other, decision­ making functions. It would be interesting to learn what it is about non-tenured faculty members that causes them to be more receptive to undergraduate student participation in matters having potentially critical import for their future careers. One might begin with the assumptions that they have greater faith in the capabilities of undergraduates to contribute to responsible decision-making than do tenured faculty or aca­ demic administrators, are less likely to perceive a need for dominant faculty authority, or anticipate more favorable con­ sequences resulting from increased student involvement. Equally appropriate and meaningful would be the creation of techniques to identify underlying reasons for objecting to such increased student participation. Structurally reliable, in-depth personal interviews could contribute significantly to the growing body of knowledge in this regard. Subscribers to C. P. Snow's theory (175, 176) that "divergent attitudes and distorted reciprocal images" exist between "humanists" and "scientists" in the academic commu­ nity (96:260) may be somewhat surprised to learn of the similar opinions about issues in this study among those representing various "college groups" (i.e., Liberal Arts, 212 Social Sciences, Natural Sciences). It should be recalled that the criteria used to assign faculty and administrators to college groups was virtually the same as that outlined in the "Taylor Report" for grouping undergraduate representa­ tives in the participation process. This is an arbitrary, obviously expansive method of grouping "according to compe­ tency in the several areas of instruction," and the group opinions are not intended to reflect those held by rep­ resentatives of specific intellectual disciplines. What can be suggested is that any biases, in terms of either favorable or unfavorable opinions toward undergraduate involvement, are equitably distributed across these wider "interdisciplinary" lines. One may be attracted to examin­ ing whether differences of opinion exist between educators engaged in more rigidly defined intellectual disciplines. It is not likely that the issue of student involve­ ment in academic governance will diminish as a source of potential problems for colleges and universities until it is openly discussed, perhaps experimented with, and honestly evaluated. Michigan State University has passed through the first of these three stages and is apparently committed to embarking upon an experimental phase. Researchers and observers interested in this issue should find much to occupy their time in the next few years''. There are skeptics, many of whom share some of the reservations identified in this study, and others who feel that the projected plans do not provide sufficient 213 opportunities for students to demonstrate their maturity and willingness to accept decision-making responsibilities. The success or failure of the upcoming experiment may very well depend upon whether these people can overcome their apprehensions and contribute in such a fashion that will encourage objective, constructive evaluation. Determining appropriate student roles in academic governance must be based, in part, upon whatever is thought needed to create and maintain an environment characterized by mutual trust and respect among campus constituencies. It is within such an atmosphere that the goals and objec­ tives of the institution are most likely to be realized. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. "AAUP balks at bylaw 'flaws'." June 3, 1970, p. 2. 2. Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University. A Report of the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs to the Academic Council. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, January 10, 1967. 3. "Academic Senate Oks revised Taylor Report." State N e w s , May 20, 1971, p. 1. 4. "Academic Senate to decide fate of participation report." Michigan State N e w s , January 19, 1971, p. 1. 5. "ACLU Says Survey Shows Student Participation Gains." Higher Education and National Affairs, XX (January 22, 1971), 8~. 6. "Adams backs changes." Michigan State News, Novem­ ber 19, 1969, p. 1. 7. Ad Hoc Committee Report on Student Participation in Academic Government. Gerald J. Massey, chairman. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, June 5, 1969. (Mimeographed.) 8 . 9. 10 . Michigan State N e w s , Michigan Agenda for the Special Meeting of the Academic Senate, February 23, 1971. (Mimeographed.) American Civil Liberties Union. "Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties of Students in Colleges and Universities." New York, April, 1970. "A Report: College Goals and Governance." News and N o t e s , V (November, 1969). Danforth 11 . Atkinson, Dick. "Aspects of Student Power." Students Today: Young Fabian Pamphlet 17 . London: Fabian Society, 1968. 12. Benezet, Louis T. "Continuity and Change: The Need for Both." The Future Academic Community: Continuity and Change. Edited by John Caffrey. Washington: American Council on Education, 19 69. 214 215 13. Berdie, Ralph F. "A Note on the Government of Universities." The Journal of College Student Personnel, X (September, 1969) , 336-7. 14. Bloustein, Edward J. "The New Student and His Role in American Colleges." Liberal Education, LIV (October, 1968), 345-64. 15. "Board sends bylaw proposals back for more alterations." MSU News-Bulletin, April 1, 1971, p. 1. 16. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1963. 17. Bowen, Howard R. "Governance and Educational Reform." In Agony and Promise. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969. 18. Bowles, W. Donald. "Student Participation in Academic Governance." Educational Record, XLIX (Summer, 1968), 257-62. 19. Brewster, Kingman, Jr. "The Politics of Academia." Extracts from an address to the student members of the Yale Political Union as reported in the Boston Sunday Globe, October 5, 1969. (Mimeo­ graphed. ) 20 . "Buckner denounces report." January 12, 1971, p. 1. Michigan State N e w s , 21. Butler, William. "Student Involvement in the DecisionMaking Process." The Journal of College Student Personnel, VII (November, 1966), 331. 22. Butts, Porter. "A Case for 'Joint Power' vs. 'Student Power'." The Bulletin of the Association of College Unions, XXXVI (December, 1968), 8ff. 23. "Bylaws changed; next stop: Trustees." N e w s , January 26, 1971, p. 2. 24. Caffrey, John. "Predictions for Higher Education in the 1970's." The Future Academic Community. Edited by John Caffrey. Washington: American Council on Education, 1969, pp. 261-292. 25. "Campus Government at Stanford." School and Society, XCVI (October 12, 1968), 330. 26. Campus Tensions: Analysis and Recommendations. Report of the Special Committee on Campus Tensions. Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1970. MSU Faculty 216 27. Carr, Alden J. Student Participation in College Policy Determination and Administration. Washington, D . C . : The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1959. 28. "Colby Constitutional Convention." The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 13, 1969, p. 7. 29. Cole, Joseph. "Student Involvement in Institutional Government: Roles and Relationships." Working paper prepared for NASPA, Minneapolis, March, 1968. 30. Corson, John J. "A Management Consultant's View: Social Change and The University." Saturday Review, January 10, 1970, p. 76. 31. Corson, John J. "From Authority to Leadership." The Journal of Higher Education, XL (March, 1969), 181-192. 32. "Council Oks bylaw changes." 1970, pp. 1, 4. 33. "Council rejects Board 'intrusion'." April 22, 1971, p. 4. 34. Davis, Bertram H. "The Role of the Faculty." Leader­ ship and Responsibility on the Changing C a m p u s : Who's In Charge H e r e ." Papers presented at American Association of State Colleges and Univer­ sities. Washington, D . C . : The Association, 1968, pp. 31-34. 35. "Delayed implementation of report seen possible." Michigan State N e w s , April 22, 1971, p. 1. 36. Desmond, Richard L. "Faculty and Student Frustrations Shaping the Future of the University." AAUP Bulletin, LV (Spring, 1969), 23-26. 37. "Draft Statement on Student Participation in College and University Government." AAUP Bulletin, Spring, 1970, pp. 33-35. 38. Dutton, Thomas B . , et al. Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Community. A Special Report of the NASPA Division of Research and Program Development, April, 1970. 39. Dykes, Archie R. Faculty Participation in Academic Decision-Making. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. MSU Faculty News, May 19, MSU News-Bulletin, 217 40. Editorial. "Another round begins for the McKee Report." Michigan State N e w s , June 24, 1970, p. 4. 41. Editorial. "Council chicanery merits student censure." Michigan State N e w s , November 23, 1970, p. 4. 42. Editorial. "Entrenching the faculty at students' expense." Michigan State N e w s , December 2, 1970, p. 4. 43. Editorial. "For both of our readers, we conclude an editorial." Michigan State N e w s , January 19, 1971, p. 4. 44. Editorial. "McKee Report is back, but not emasculated." Michigan State N e w s , February 27, 1970, p. 4. 45. Editorial. nels." p. 4. 46. Editorial. "Student participation: now an illusive dream?" Michigan State N e w s , January 18, 1971, p. 4. 47. Editorial. ment." p. 4. 48. Editorial. "Taylor not perfect, but . . . " State News, May 21, 1971, p. 4. 49. Editorial. "Taylor Report: lesson in 'U's official channels." Michigan State N e w s , January 6, 1971, p. 4. 50. Elliott, Lloyd H. "Changing Internal Structures: The Relevance of Democracy." The Future Academic Com­ munity: Continuity and Change. Edited by John Caffrey. Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, pp. 44-55. 51. Evans, Ellis D. "Student Activism and Teaching Effectiveness: Survival of the Fittest." The Journal of College Student Personnel, X (March, 1969), 102-108. 52. "Excerpts from Unpublished HEW Study on Tensions." The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 13, 1969, pp. 3-4. 53. Falvey, Francis E. Student Participation in College Administration. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. "Needed: commission to revamp the chan­ Michigan State N e w s , January 12, 1971, "Students lack control over student docu­ Michigan State N e w s , December 1, 19 70, Michigan 218 54. Fedore, Robert Ryvan. "An Evaluation of the Report on the Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. 55. Foote, Caleb, £t a_l. The Culture of the University: Governance and Education. The Majority Report of the Study Commission on University Governance, University of California, Berkeley. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1968. 56. Foster, Julian. "Power, Authority & Expertise: Administration in a Changing Context." Liberal Education, LIV (December, 1968), 592-600. 57. Frankel, Charles. Education and the Barricades. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1968. 58. "From Massey to Taylor: Two Views." MSU Faculty N e w s . January 12, 1971, pp. 1, 4. 59. Gallagher, Buell G. "Student Unrest." The American Student and His College. Edited by Esther M. Lloyd-Jones and Herman A. Estrin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1967, pp. 291-298. 60. Gallagher, Buell C. "Who Runs the Institution?" In Order and Freedom on the Ca mp us . Edited by Owen Knorr and W. John Minter. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, October, 1965, pp. 89-95. 61. Gamson, Zelda F. "Performance and Personalism in Student-Faculty Relations." Sociology of Education, XL (Fall, 1967), 279-301. 62. Golden, M. Patricia, and Rosen, Ned A. "Student Attitudes Toward Participation in University Administration: An Empirical Study Related to Managerial Prerogatives." The Journal of College Student Personnel, VII (November, 1966), 323-30. 63. "Gould Foresees Hope and Accomplishment Arising From Today's Agony of Nation's Universities." The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 6, 1969, p. 6. 64. "Governing A College— How Much Should Students Have To Say?" College Management, IV (May, 1969), 30-60. 65. Gross, Edward, and Grambsch, Paul U. University Goals and Academic P ow er . Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. 219 66. Haig, Frank R. "Institutional Academic Freedom." Liberal Education, LIV (December, 1968), 533-39. 67. Halladay, D. W. "The Role of the Student." Leader­ ship Responsibility on the Changing Campus; Who's In Charge H e r e . Papers presented at American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Washington, D . C . : The Association, 1968, pp. 47-49. 68. Hallberg, Edmond C. "An Academic Congress: A Direc­ tive in University Governance." Phi Delta Kappan, L (May, 1969), 538-40. 69. Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. 70. Heimbarger, Frederic. "The State Universities." Daedalus, XCIII, No. 4 (Fall, 1964), 1107-1108. 71. Hekhuis, Louis Frederick. "A Comparison of the Perceptions of Students and Faculty at Michigan State University With Respect to Student Partici­ pation in University Policy Formulation." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, 1967. 72. Henderson, Algo D. "Control in Higher Education: Trends and Issues." The Journal of Higher Education, XL (January, 1969), 1-11. 73. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Student Participation in Campus Governance." Paper read at AERA, Los Angeles, February, 1969. 74. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Students and an Intellectual Community." Education Record, XLIX (Fall, 1968), 398-406. 75. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Who Decides Who Decides?" Agony and Promise. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969, pp. 139144. 76. Hoffman, Philip G. "The Changing Pattern of Governance in Higher Education." The Southern Association Newsletter, XXI (January, 1969), 5-9. 77. Hoffman, Stanley. "Participation in Perspective?" Daedalus: The Embattled University, XCIX (Winter, 1970), 177-221. 78. Hook, Sidney. "Harold Taylor's Evasions." K ap p a n , LI (December, 1969), 197-8. Phi Delta 220 79. Hook, Sidney. "The Architecture of Educational Chaos." Phi Delta Ka pp a n , LI (October, 1969) , 68-70. 80. "How 3 Constituent Groups See Student Aims." The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 19, 1969, p. 1. 81. Hubbell, Robert N. "Sociological and Attitudinal Factors Relating to Perception of College Student Misbehavior." The Journal of College Student Personnel, VIII (September, 1967), 318-321. 82. Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "Restructuring the Governance of Higher Education." AAUP Bulletin, Winter, 19 70, pp. 371-374. 83. Jencks, Christopher and Riesman, David. Revolution. Garden City, New York: 1968. 84. Johnstone, D. Bruce. "The Student and His Power." The Journal of Higher Education, XL (March, 19 69), 205-218. 85. "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students." Liberal Education, LIV (March, 1968), 152-158. 86 . Kauffman, Joseph F. "The Role of the Student." Leadership and Responsibility on the Changing Campus: Who's In Charge Here? Papers presented at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Washington, D . C . : The Association, 1968. 87. Keeton, Morris. Shared Authority on Campus. Washington, D . C . : The American Association for Higher Education, 1971. 88 . Keeton, Morris. "The Disenfranchised on Campus." Paper presented at AAHE 25th National Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, March 2, 19 70. 89. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. 90. Kerlinger, Fred N. "Student Participation in Univer­ sity Educational Decision Making." The Record, LXX (October, 1968), 45-51. 91. Kerr, Clark. "Governance and Functions." Daedalus: The Embattled University, XCIX (Winter, 1970), 108-121. 92. Keyes, Ralph. N A S P A , VI The Academic Doubleday, "Student Involvement: The Why and How." (October, 1968), 77-82. 221 93. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 196 8 . 94. K l o p f , Gordon. College Student Government. Harper and Brothers, 1960. 95. L auth, Lawrence V. "Report on the Survey on Student Participation in Academic Governance." Office of Institutional Research, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan, 1969. 96. Lewis, Lionel S. "Two Cultures: Some Empirical Findings." Educational Record, XLVIII (Summer, 1967), 260-267. 97. Lew y, Guenter, and Rothman, Stanley. "On Student Power." AAUP Bulletin, Fall, 1970, pp. 279-282. 98. Long, Durwood. "The Impact of Activist Students in. Changing the Governance and Culture of the Campus." Paper presented at AAHE 25th National Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, March 3, 1970. 99. Lounsway, Francis A. "A Share in Academic Governance." Catholic Educational R ev i e w , LXVI (May, 196 9), 873-878. 100 . New York: Lundberg, George A. Social Research. New York: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 19 42. 101 . Lunn, Harry H., Jr. The Student's Role in College Policy-Making. Washington: American Council on Education, 1957. 102 . Lunsford, Terry F. "Authority and Ideology in the Administered University." The American Behavioral Scientist, XI (May-June, 1968), 5-14. 103. "Major Shift in University's Responsibility to Students Charted by Stanford." The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 29, 196 9, p. 1. 104. Masingill, E. Frank. "Survey of the Perceived Value of Student Participation in Institutional PolicyMaking at LSUNO." A Report for the NDEA Institute for Student Personnel Workers, Michigan State University, June 26, 1968 to May 13, 1969. 105. "Massey expresses surprise at misunderstanding of report." Michigan State News, November 19, 1969, p. 1 . 222 106. "Massey on the Massey Report: The product of con­ sensus." MSU Faculty N e w s , January 13, 1970, p. 4. 107. "Massey Report remains unacceptable to council." Michigan State N e w s , November 4, 1969, p. 1. 108. Mayhew, Lewis B. Colleges Today and Tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969. 109. Mayhew, Lewis B. "Faculty in Campus Governance." Agony and Promise. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969, pp. 145-160. 110 . McGrath, Earl J. Philadelphia: 111 . "McKee: Power loss feared." June 5, 1970, p. 1. 112 . Miller, T. K . , and Pilkey, G. P. "College Student Personnel and Academic Freedom for Students." Personnel and Guidance Journal, XVI (June, 1968), 954-60. 113. Millett, John D. The Academic Community. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962. 114. Milton, Ohmer. Survey of Faculty Views on Student Participation in Decision-Making. Final Report. Washington: Office of Education, Bureau of Research, 1969. 115. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 5, 1968. Office of the Secretary of the Faculties, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 116. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, May 27, 1969. 117. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 14, 1969. 118. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 21, 1969. 119. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 22, 1969. 120 . Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 27, 1969. Should Students Share the Power? Temple University Press, 1970. Michigan State N e w s , New York: 223 121. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 28, 1969. 122. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, March 3, 1970. 123. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, March 5, 1970. 124. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, March 10, 1970. 125. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, March 12, 1970. 126. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, April 7, 1970. 127. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, May 12, 1970. 128. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, May 15, 1970. 129. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 6 , 1970. 130. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 3, 1970. 131. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 4, 1970. 132. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 10, 1970. 133. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 17, 1970. 134. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, February 9, 1971. 135. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, April 20, 1971. 136. Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, June 1, 1971. 137. Minutes of the Academic Senate of Michigan State University, June 3, 1970. Office of the Secre­ tary of the Faculties, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 224 138. Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Partici­ pation in Academic Government, January 29, 1969. Office of the Dean of Students, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 139. Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Partici­ pation in Academic Government, Michigan State University, February 12, 1969. 140. Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Partici­ pation in Academic Government, Michigan State University, February 19, 1969. 141. Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Partici­ pation in Academic Government, Michigan State University, March 5, 1969. 142. MSU Omnibus Survey, Report # 1 . East Lansing: MSU Urban Survey Research Unit, Bureau of Social Science Research, July, 1970. 143. Murphy, Franklin D. "Address." Presented at American Council on Education Meeting in Denver, October, 1968. 144. NASPA Ad Hoc Committee on Student Power. "Special: Statement on Student Power." N A S P A , VI (October, 1968), 87-89. 145. National Commission on the Causes & Prevention of Violence. To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic Tranquility. Washington, D . C .: Government Printing Office, 1970. 146. Nisbit, Robert A. "Conflicting Academic Loyalties." Improving College Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966. 147. "Nominating issue solved." April 19, 1971, p. 2. 148. Ohles, John. "Realities and Student Power." Record, LXX (October, 1968), 53-56. 149. Michigan State N e w s , "Open Senate meeting would show good faith." State N e w s , January 19, 1971, p. 4. The Michigan 150. "Panel appointed to study Taylor Report conflicts." Michigan State News, February 22, 1971, pp. 1, 10. 151. "Passage came easier than some expected." N e w s , January 26, 1971, p. 2. MSU Faculty 225 152. Powell, Robert S. Is Learning." pp. 56+. 153. Powell, Robert S., Jr. "Student Power and the Student Role in Institutional Governance." Liberal Education, LV (March, 1969), 24-31. 154. Price, William. "The Role of the Student." Leader­ ship and Responsibility on the Changing Campus: Who's In Charge Here? Papers presented at American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1968, pp. 85-104. 155. "Professionalism as a sacred cow." Michigan State News, "Tuesday" Supplement, January 12, 19 71, pp. 1-4. 156. "Professors Press Toward Goal in Governance." The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 19, 1969, p. 3. 157. "Proposed Resolution For Academic Senate: Six Questions Concerning 'McKee Committee' Recommen­ dations." Mimeographed statement distributed to Academic Senate of Michigan State University on June 3, 1970. 158. "Public Universities React to Unrest with New R u le s, Greater Student Role." The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 9, 19 70, p. 1. 159. "Report 'faculty-supremist' drivel." N e w s , December 2, 1970, p. 4. 160. Report of the New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government. James B. McKee, chairman. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, February 17, 19 70. (Mimeographed.) 161. Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Partici­ pation in the Academic Government: The Report of the Academic Council. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Office of the Secretary of the Faculties, December 3, 1970. (Mimeographed.) 162. "Revolt on Campuses Called 'Power Grabs'." Journal, January 12, 1970, p. 3. 163. Roth, William M. "A University Trustee's View: Dilemmas of Leadership." Saturday Review, January 10, 1970, p. 64. "A Student's View: Participation Saturday Review, January 10, 1970, Michigan State The State The 226 16 4. Sax, Gilbert. Empirical Foundations of Educational Research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 165. Schellenberg, Arthur B. "Critical Issues and Leadership on Today's Campus." Leadership and Responsibility on the Changing Campus: Who's In Charge Here? Papers presented at American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1968, pp. 15-17. 166 . Schiff v. Han na h, Civil No. 5147, W. D. Mich., October 14, 1965. 16 7. Schwartz, Edward. "Student Power— In Response to the Questions." The Future Academic Community: Continuity and Change. Edited by John Caffrey. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969, pp. 56-67. 16 8 . Schwebel, Robert. "Wakening Our Sleepy Universities: Student Involvement in Curriculum Change." The Record, LXX (October, 1968), 31-43. 169. Semrow, Joseph J. "Faculty Participation in Policy Formation." The North Central Association Quarterly, XLII (Spring, 1968), 277-8. 170. Semrow, Joseph J. "Institutional Governance." The North Central Association Quarterly, XLII (Spring, 1968) , 275-6. 171. "Senate rejects faculty bylaw changes." N e w s , June 30, 1970, p. 4. 172. Sindler, Allan P. "A Case Study in StudentUniversity Relations." The Future Academic Community: Continuity and Change. Edited by John Caffrey. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969, pp. 119-137. 173. Singletary, Otis A. "Freedom And Order On Campus." Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1968. 174. Skutt, Richard. "The Role of the Student." Leader­ ship and Responsibility on the Changing Campus: Who's In Charge Here? Papers presented at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C,: The Association, 1968, pp. 54-57. MSU Faculty 227 175. Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1959. 176. Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and a Second L o o k . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1964. 177. Sparzo, Frank J. "Facing the Issues of Student Unrest." School and Society, XCVI (October 26, 1968), 359-361. 178. Spolyar, Ludwig J. "Student Power: Threat or Challenge for Student Personnel." NASPA, VI (October, 1968), 74-77. 179. "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities." Joint statement from the American Association of University Professors, American Council on Edu­ cation and Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Washington, D.C.: AAUP. (Reprint from Winter, 1966 issue of AAUP Bulletin.) 180. Stamatakos, Louis C. "Student Involvement: Oppor­ tunity for Development of Responsible Leadership and Educational Reform." Keynote address at the Proceedings of Kansas City Regional Council for Higher Education Autumn Student Conference, October 6-7, 1967, Camdenton, Missouri. 181. "Student Freedoms and Responsibilities--A Working Paper." Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1969. 182. "Student Initiated Curriculum To Be Adopted At Brown University." The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 16, 1969, p. 1. 183. "Student participation report passes with some changes." MSU Faculty N e w s , November 24, 1970, p. 2. 184. "Students Are Gaining More Say In Governance, But Yale's Brewster Questions the Trend." The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 6 , 196 9, p. 3. 185. "Students Gain Stronger Voice in Campus DecisionMaking." The Chronicle of Higher Educa ti on , March 24, 1969, p. 1. 186. Susman, Warren I. "Is Increased Participation in Decision Making Enough?" Paper presented at AAHE 25th National Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, March 2, 19 70. 228 187. Taylor, Harold. "Students, Universities, and Sidney Hook." Phi Delta Kappan, LI (December, 1969), 195-6. 188. Taylor, Harold. "The Student Revolution." Ka pp an , LI (October, 1969), 62-67. 189. "Taylor Report a foot in the door." N e w s , January 19, 1971, p. 4. Michigan State 190. "Taylor Report: no viable outlet." N e w s , January 19, 19 71, p. 4. Michigan State 191. "Taylor Report under fire from ASMSU student panel." Michigan State N e w s , January 28, 1971, p. 1. 19 2. "The Campus Confrontations." The Research Reporter. The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, IV, Number 1, 1969. 193. The Cox Commission Report. Crisis at Columbia. New York: Random House Vintage Books, 196 8 . 194. "The debate goes on: Council passes two sections of Taylor panel report." MSU Faculty N e w s , November 10, 19 70, p. 1. 195. "The students' role expands. . . . " January, 1970, pp. 12-14. 196 . The Temple Plan for University Governance. Report of the Commission on Student Participation in the Policy-Making Processes of the University. Temple University, September, 196 8 . 197. Thomas, William L . , Jr. "Perceptions of University G oa ls : A Comparison of Administrators, Faculty and Students Engaged in the Practice Teaching and/or Study of Student Personnel Administration at Michigan State University with a Nationwide Study of University Faculty and Administrators." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State Univer­ sity, 1970. 198. "3 Institutions Pick Students As Trustees." The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 16, 1969, p . 12. 199. Trow, Martin. "Survey Research and Education." Survey Research in the Social Sciences. Edited by Charles Y. Glock. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. Phi Delta College Management, 229 200. "Trustees unanimously ok student participation report." Michigan State N e w s , May 24, 1971, p. 1. 201 . "Universities Work to Make Unrest a Positive Force." NASULGC Office of Inst. Research Report #133, March 23, 1969. 202 . "USAC undecided on plans for council representatives." Michigan State N e w s , April 12, 1971, p. 3. 203. "U.S. Leaders Urged to Press College Reforms." Chronicle of Higher Education, October 13, 1969, p. 1. 204. Vaccaro, Louis C. "Power and Conflict in the University: A Search for Solutions." College and University, XLIV (Fall, 1968), 97-107. 205. Williamson, E. G . , and Cowan, John L. The American Student's Freedom of Expression. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1966. 206. Wilson, Logan. "A Few Kind Words for Academic Administrators." The Education Digest, XXXIV (May, 1969), 6- 8 . 207. Wise, W. Max. "Reflections on New Configurations in Campus Governance." Paper presented at the AAHE 25th National Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, March 2, 1970. 208. Wrenn, Robert L. "The Authority Controversy and Today's Student." Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLVI (June, 1968), 949-53. 209. Young, Kenneth E. "The Coming Conflict Between Students and Faculty." NASPA, V (January, 1969), 277-82. 210 . Zimmerman, W. David. "An End to Collegial Governance in Colleges and Universities." AGB Reports, March, 1969, pp. 21-26. The APPENDICES APPENDIX A AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT This report is now before the Academic Council, to be acted upon by it and by the Academic Senate in Fall, 1969 Distributed by the Office of the Secretary of the Faculties June 5, 1969 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY April 23, 196S TO; Academic Council FROM; Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government SUBJECT; Committee’s Report on Student Participation in Academic Government 1. History of the Committee 1s Report. On November 5, 1968 the Academic Council directed the Committee on Committees to select an a_d hoc committee "to study the matter of student participation in the academic government of the University, notably with respect to the question of the freedom of units of the University to determine whether or not student members will be given the right to vote". The Ad Hoc Committee was called together on January 15, 1S69 and was directed to report to the Academic Council in sufficient time for the Council to report on the matter at the Spring Senate meeting. The A<3 Hoc Committee was instructed that its recommendations should embrace the following; "number of student representatives, manner of selection, and capacity". (Quotations are taken from the letter of the Chairman of the Steering Committee to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee.) The Ad Hoc Committee consisted of 8 faculty members, 3 undergraduate students, and two graduate students. The Committee elected a chairman on January 15, 1969 and set about its task. The Committee resolved to devote several months to collecting information about the extent, nature, and effectiveness of student participation in academic government at M. S. U. and on other campuses. Letters requesting such information were sent to all deans, department chairmen, chairmen of college advisory committees, etc. The Committee is grateful .'or the large number of responses it received, and to the Office of Institutional Research for assistance in evaluating them. Simultaneously with collecting information, the Committee reflected on the nature of the university and the role students ought to play therein. The recommendations formulated below represent the Committee's consensus on the role students should have in academic government at Michigan State University. Committee's Report on SPAG April 23, 1969 Page Two 2. The Committee 1s Recommendations. Preamble. It is essential to the well-being of the University that faculty, administrators, and students perceive one another as mature, fellow citizens of an academic community the common good of which it is the joint responsibility of all to seek and promote. We believe that this joint responsibility requires that students, faculty, and administrators all have an effective voice in the formation and adoption of academic policies throughout the Univer­ sity. And we think that both the sense of community and the effectiveness of student participation is best achieved by bringing students, in sufficient numbers, into the existing policy-making and decision-making bodies and committees of departments, schools, colleges and the University, rather than by proliferating parallel student advisory groups. General Recommendations. Recommendation 1 ; Every administrative unit of the University shall have the authority to extend voting privileges on internal matters (Cf. Bylaws of the Faculty, 1.2.1) to any member or members of the university community. Recommendation 2 : Students shall, in general, be given vote on any body or committee on which they sit. (We believe that the practice of granting voice without vote to students serves no useful purpose, but tends only to create dis­ trust, to weaken the sense of community, and to reduce the effectiveness and value of student participation.) Recommendation 3 ; The university learning experience shall be understood broadly enough to encompass participation in academic government. Accordingly, the University Educational Policies Committee shall prepare a report to the Academic Council on whether academic credit should be given for substantial participa­ tion in academic government and, if so, on the kind of credit and the manner and conditions under which it shall be awarded. Recommendations concerning University- level Academic Government Recommendation 4_s In addition to its dean and elected faculty representatives, each college shall be represented on the Academic Council by one voting student representative (one for each college) who is selected by students in accordance with procedures approved Committee 1s Report on SPAG April 23, 1969 Page Three by the voting faculty of the college. The selection procedures should be developed by the College Advisory Council in coopera­ tion with any existing college student organizations. Recommendation 5 ; In addition to the college student representa­ tives mentioned in recommendation 4, there shall be three voting undergraduate student representatives-at-large and two voting graduate student representatives-at-large on the Academic Council. The undergraduate representatives-at-large shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by Associated Students of Michigan State University. The graduate representatives-at-large shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by the Council of Graduate Students. Recommendation 6 : One student, to be elected annually by the student members of the Academic Council from among their own number, shall serve as a voting member of the Steering Committee of the University. Recommendation 7 : The appellation "faculty standing committee" shall be changed to "university standing committee". On each university standing committee there shall be voting student members in the numbers prescribed below. Undergraduate student committee members shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by Associated Students of Michigan State University. Graduate student committee members shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by the Council of Graduate Students. University Curriculum Committee: graduates. 3 undergraduates; 2 University Educational Policies Committee: 9 undergraduates; 6 graduates. University Faculty Affairs Committee: 1 undergraduate; 1 graduate. University Faculty Tenure Committee: 2 undergraduates; 1 graduate„ University Committee on Honors Programs: 2 undergraduates; 1 graduate. Of the two undergraduate members of the Committee on Honors Programs, one should be a member of the Honors College or enrolled in an honors program, but the other should not be. The graduate member of this Committee should, as an undergraduate, have been enrolled in an honors college or program. Committee's Report on SPAG April 2 3 1 Page Four , University International Projects Committees 2 under­ graduates? 1 graduate. University Library Committee? 2 undergraduates? 2 graduates. University Student Affairs Committee; 2 undergraduates? 2 graduates. Because of conflicts of responsibilities pursuant to implementa­ tion of the Academic Freedom Report, a re-evaluation shall be undertaken of the charge, composition, and functions of the Student Affairs Committee and of the relevant portions of the Academic Freedom Report. The Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation concerning composition of the Student Affairs Committee is predicated on the existing structure and is intended to apply only until such a reevaluation has been completed and implemented. University Committee on Business Affairs; graduate? 1 graduate. 1 under­ Recommendation 8 ; The composition and functions of the Graduate Council should be studied and evaluated, and the relationship of the Graduate Council to other academic bodies should be clearly stated in the Bylaws of the Faculty. Three graduate students and one undergraduate student shall sit as voting members of the Graduate Council. The graduate student members shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by the Council of Graduate Students? the undergraduate student member shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by Associated Students of Michigan State University. Working committees appointed by the Graduate Council should contain an equal number of faculty and student representatives. The Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations concerning the Graduate Council are predicated on the existing structure and are intended to apply only until the aforementioned study and evaluation have been completed and implemented. Recommendation 9 : The precedent of meaningful student participa­ tion set by the present procedures for the selection of a president of the University shall be followed in the selection of all principal academic officers of the University. .Recommendation 1 0: Every ad^ hoc or special committee of the University shall contain an appropriate number of voting student members to provide significant student representation. Committee's Report on SPAG April 23, 1S69 Page Five Recommendations concerning College- level Academic Government Recommendation 11 ; In each college, either the College Advisory Council shall have an appropriate number of voting student members to provide significant student representation, or else there shall be a separate Dean's Student Advisory Committee, or both. In the event that a college establishes a D e a n ’s Student Advisory Com­ mittee but does not provide for significant student representation on its College Advisory Council, the Dean's Student Advisory Com­ mittee shall select one of its own members to sit ex officio without vote on the College Advisory Council, and the College Advisory Council shall select one of its members to sit ex officio without vote on the Dean's Student Advisory Committee. Recommendation 12: Each college standing committee or acl hoc committee shall have an appropriate number of voting student members to provide significant student representation. Recommendation 13: The procedures developed by a college for faculty consultation in the selection of its dean shall also provide for meaningful student participation. Recommendations concerning Department- level Academic Government (School- level) Recommendation 1 4 : Each departmental (school) policy-making or decision-making or advisory body or committee shall have an appropriate number of student members to provide for significant student representation. In particular, there shall be a depart­ mental (school) Teaching Committee, to be composed of an equal number of faculty and students. The Teaching Committee shall advise the department (school) on procedures for evaluating teach­ ing, and on ways and means of improving both undergraduate and graduate teaching. The Teaching Committee shall submit to the department (school) an evaluation of the teaching ability of any person being considered for appointment, retention, promotion, or tenure. Recommendation 15 : The procedures developed by a department (school) for faculty consultation in the selection of its chairman (director) shall also provide for meaningful student participation. Committee's Report on SPAG April 23, 1SSS Page Six 3. Changes to the Bylaws of the Faculty. Implementation of the above recommendations requires that many changes be made in the Bylaws of the Faculty (1968). The substanti al changes are listed in enclosure (1). The remaining changes are editorial in nature. Respectfully submitted, Gerald J. Massey Chairman Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government Enclosures:. (1) (2) Changes to the Bylaws of the Faculty Roster of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government ROSTER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT Bettinghaus, Prof. Erwin P. (Faculty Affairs Committee) Brooks, Prof. Theodore J. (Student Affairs Committee) Cummins, Mr. W. Raymond (Council of Graduate Students) Dickmeyer, Mr. Nathan C. (Student Academic Council) Grant, Prof. W. Harold (Comm, on Acad. Rts. & Respons.) Hughes, Miss Susan S. (A.S.M.S.U.) Keller, Prof. Waldo F. (Comm, on Acad. Rts. & Respons.) Kelly, Prof. William V.'. (Director, Honors College) Mandelstamm, Prof. Allan B. (Student Affairs Committee) Massey, Prof. Gerald J. (Faculty Affairs Committee) Nonnamaker, Prof. Eldon R. (Assoc. Dean of Students) Patterson, Mr. Floyd A. (Council of Graduate Students) Schack, Miss Gina D. (Undergraduate Student) Committee's Report on SPAG April 23, 1S6S Page Seven Changes to the Bylaws of the Faculty - 1S68. Article Change (1) 1 .2 .2 . Delete last three lines and substitute the following "any member or members of the University community". (2 ) 1 .2 ,6 . Substitute "members" (3) 2,2.4. Add the following: "Because the department chairman has a special obligation to develop a department strong in teaching capacity, it is appropriate that students be consulted in his selection or appointment". (4) 2.3.1. Substitute "school, and of students," first occurrence of "school". <5) 2.3,2. Add the following: "In particular, there shall be a departmental (school) Teaching Committee composed of an equal number of faculty and students. The Teaching Committee shall advise the department (school) on procedures for evaluating teaching, and on ways and means of improving both undergraduate and graduate teaching. The Teaching Committee shall submit to the department (school) an evaluation of the teaching ability of any person being con­ sidered for appointment, retention, promotion, or tenure." (6) 3.2.3. Add: "Because of the dean's responsibility to promote good teaching, it is appropriate that students be consulted in his selection or appointment." (7) 3.5.1. Delete first occurrence of "faculty". Add the following at the end of 3.5.1.: "Either the College Advisory Council shall have an appro­ priate number of voting student members to provide significant student representation, or there shall be a separate Dean's Student Advisory Committee, or both." for "faculty". for the Committee's Report on SPAG April 23, 1969 Page Eight Article Change (8 ) 3.5.8. New article: "In the event that a college does not provide for significant student representa­ tion on its College Advisory Council, the Dean's Student Advisory Committee shall select one of its members to sit ex officio without vote on the College Advisory Council, and the College Advisory Council shall select one of its members to sit ex officio without vote on the Dean's Student Advisory Committee." (9) 4.1.3. Add: "It is appropriate that students be consulted in the selection of the President." (10) 4.2,1, Add: "It is appropriate that students also be consulted in the selection of principal academic officers of the University. (11) 4.4.1.1, After "Steering Committee" insert "the designated student representatives." (12) 4,4.1.1.3. Renumber as 4.4.1.1.4. substitute "fourth" for "third", and delete everything from "two under­ graduate" to "Graduate Council" inclusive. Insert the following new article 4.4.1.1.3. "The sub-group consisting of the student rep­ resentatives shall constitute the Student Council." (13) 4.4.1.2.1. (14) 4.4.4. After "Appointed Council (4.4.1.1.2.)", insert "and members of the Student Council (4.4.1.1.3.)' Renumber 4.4.4. as 4.4.5. and insert the following new article 4.4.4.: 4.4.4. Number and Selection of Student Rep­ resentatives 4.4.4.1. Each college shall be represented on the Academic Council by one student. The student shall be selected in accordance with procedures prescribed by the voting faculty of the college. Committee1s Report on SPAG April 23, 1S69 Page Nine Article Change 4.4.4.2. There shall he three undergraduate student representatives-at-large who shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by Associated Students of Mich­ igan State University. 4.4.4.3. There shall be two graduate stu­ dent representatives-at-large who shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by the Council of Graduate Students. (15) 4.4.5.3. Insert "faculty" in front of "members of the Steering Committee." (16) 4.4.5.4, Insert "the Student Council", after "Elected Faculty Council". (17) 4.5.1.1. Substitute for the first sentence: "The Steering Committee shall be composed of five faculty members elected by the voting faculty of the university for two-year terms, with no more than one faculty member coming from any one college, and of one student elected annually by the members of the Student Council from among their own number. (18) 4.5.2.1. Insert after "organizations" the following: "or individual students or student groups and orga­ nizations" . (19) 4.5.2.2. Substitute "faculty member or student" "member of the Academic Senate". for (20) 4.6. Throughout 4.6. restrict references to representatives and members. faculty (21) 5. Throughout 5., substitute "university standing committee" for "faculty standing committee". (22 ) 5.1.1. Substitute "academic government" government". for "faculty Committee's Report on SPAG April 23, 1969 Page Ten Article Change (23) 5.2. From 5.2.2. to 5.2.6. make appropriate re­ strictions to faculty representatives. (24) 5.2.6. Delete 5.2.6. and substitute the following new article 5.2.6.: "University standing committees shall have the following number of undergraduate and graduate student representatives: Curriculum Committee (3 undergraduate., 2 graduate) ; Educational Policies Committee (9 undergraduate, 6 grad­ uate) ; Faculty Affairs Committee (1 under­ graduate, 1 graduate); Faculty Tenure Committee (2 undergraduate, 1 graduate) ,* Committee on Honors Programs (2 undergraduate, 1 graduate); International Projects Committee (2 under­ graduate, 1 graduate)? Library Committee (2 undergraduate, 2 graduate); Student Affairs Committee (2 undergraduate, 2 graduate); Committee on Business Affairs (1 undergraduate, 1 graduate). Undergraduate representatives shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by Associated Students of Michigan State University. Graduate representatives shall be selected in accordance with procedures established by the Council of Graduate Students". (25) 5.3.1. Substitute "colleges" (26) 5.4.1.1. Add at end of first sentence: representatives." (27) 5.4.1.2. Substitute "faculty representatives" for "representatives." (28) 5.4.2.1. Same as (26). (29) 5.4.3.1, Same as (26). (30) 5.4.4.1, Same as (26). (31) 5.4.5.1. Same as (26). for "college faculties." "and its student Committee's Report on SPAG April 23, 1869 Page Eleven Article Change (32) 5.4.6.1. Same as (26). (33) 5.4.7.1. Same as (26) . (34) 5.4.8.1. Same as (26). (35) 5.4.9.1. Same as (26). (36) 6.1.1. Add at end of sentence: Graduate Students." (37) 7.3. New article: "Each ad hoc committee shall contain an appropriate number of students to provide significant student representation." (38) 8. Throughout, change "faculty government" to "academic government." (39) 8.3. New article: "The University shall recognize a student's participation in academic government as an important and integral part of the university learning experience. "and the Council of APPENDIX B REPORT OF THE NEW COMMITTEE ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT Report of The New Co mm itt ee on Student P a r t ic ip ati on in A c a d e m i c G ov ernment Introduction In Nove mb er , 1969, the A c a d e m i c Council, after e xt e n d e d debate, m e n d e d that the Report of the Comm it te e on Student Go vernment, student s u b m i t t e d to the Council committee for revision. Counc il b y the President, the University. The from the report to be chosen by the President upon r e ­ and alternate student members of the Aca d e m i c represents the work of this New Committee on Student P a r t i c i p a t i o n in A c a d e m i c Go vernment Nov ember, 1969, be re tu rn ed to a n e w faculty- upon recommen dat io n by the Steer in g C o m mi tt ee of Student members were following P ar ticipation in Ac ad em ic Faculty mem bers were to be chosen co mm en da tio n from student members Council. in May recom­ since receiving its m a n d a t e in 1969. This C o m m it tee be ga n with the conviction that the discussions in A c a d e m i c Council c learly i n d i c at ed substantial agreement that students sho ul d be i n ­ v o lv ed in the ac ademic d ec is io n- mak in g p rocesses o f that parti ci pat io n, the numbers of the University. of students to be involved, The nature and the methods to be u se d to select students were issues on which the New Committee det ected consid er ab le disagreement attempts to suggest during the debate. Insofar as possible, a resolution of these issues, but it does not to be as com pre he ns iv e or as specific as the original report. this report always attempt Rather, we hope here to suggest some steps toward the involvement of students in ac ademic go vernment wh ic h we b e li eve n e e d to be taken immediately. Beyond that, however, we p r o p o s e e s t a b l i s h i n g the m ac hinery by wh ich the system o f academic government at M ic h i g a n State Un iversity can be monitored, This report makes recommendations and changes made when desirable. in five areas: (1) the involvement of - 2 students w i th in the several the University; (3) departments, colleges, centers and institutes of (2) the i nv olvement o f stu dents wi th i n the A c a d e m i c Council; the i nvolvement o f students on va rious s ta nd ing com mittees of the Aca de mi c Council; (4) the p r o v i s i o n for s pec i f i c m i n o r i t y student academic government; and (5) the est ab l i s h m e n t mittee on A c a d e m i c G overnance; Faculty Affairs Co mmittee; rep re se n t a t i o n in of a new F a cu lt y-S tu de nt C o m ­ the r e d e f i ni ti on o f the re sp ons i b i l i t y of the the redefini ti on and r ec ons ti t u t i o n o f the Student Affairs Committee. Before moving to a di scussion and the recom me nda ti on s in each o f these five areas, we should no te that we h ave mad e n o r e c o m m e nd ati on s student pa rt ic i p a t i o n on the G ra du at e Council. motion o f the A c a d e m i c Council, These rec om me ndations, by will be ma de s e pa ra te ly b y the Gr ad ua te Council. We s ho u l d f u rt her note that o u r report for changes regarding does not make s pe cif ic recommendations in the Bylaws of the F a cu lt y d es i g n e d to ac complish the changes pr op os ed in o ur report. It is the feel in g o f the C o m mi tt ee that action by the A c a d e m i c Coun cil on the pr e s e n t report, authorize the S te ering C om mittee o f the Council including the S e c r et ar y of the Faculty, following that the Council should to e s t a bl is h a small committee, to draft the appr op ri ate changes which will be n e c e s s a r y to a cc omplish w h a t e v e r actions are taken by the A ca de m i c Council. Part I Student P ar ti c i p a t i o n in A c a d e m i c G o v er nme nt w i t h i n the Sev eral Departments, Colleges, Centers and Institutes. S ho rtly after its formation, in A c a d e m i c Go vernment co nd uc ted a s u r vey o f all departments, of the A c a d e m i c Council, a general request the New Co mmi tt ee on Student Particip at io n colleges, members and directors o f centers and institutes. for opinions In addition, and in fo rm a t i o n was issued by the Committee. - 3 O u r requests w er e twofold. We w a n t e d to find out how students were currently be i n g i n v o l v e d in the a c a d e m i c d e c i s i o n- ma ki ng process University. We also w a n t e d to collect opinions how st udents s h o u l d be involved. grat if yin g and helpful. W i tho ut attempting a formal statistical can state that s tu dent levels almost the gamut o f p o ss ibilities. on all committees. Most few, and only a few, tures with still others serve interest. str uctures, wh il e of students and faculty members. Some and colleges through election in dicating their involve only those students who are majors w it h i n the also make an attempt to involve students w ho are not in the p a r t i c u l a r department. Most in committee work, while made an attempt to involve both at M i c h i g a n State U n iv ers it y there d e c i s i on -m ak in g proc es s units have, to date, are examples of student involvement at the department and college In short, of almost in the academic level. The v ari et y o f these a p p ro ac he s be i n g d e v e l o p e d throughout suggests that it w o u l d be u n wi se to insist n ow on any one model in the affairs o f departments, in­ a s m al ler n u m b e r have un de rg r a d u a t e and graduate students. every p o s s i b l e type o f ar rangement However, in any way in completely int eg ra ted s t r u c ­ as a result o f t h e i r hav in g filed p et itions volv ed u n d e rg rad ua te st ude nt s ment of students are a Oth er s h av e be en se le c t e d by faculty nomina tio ns , while department, whi le others at the p re se nt time There in volved students others have serve in t h e i r departments Some units n e c e s s a r i l y majors Some departments have students Some units of the univ er si ty have d eveloped a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal n um bers by ot h e r students. and college and colleges have d e v e l op ed some way of d e pa rt me nts which have not student p a r t i c i p a n t s about study for the on the departmental to some extent in decision making. their d ec is i o n - m a k i n g processes. completely p ar e l l e l involvement depar tm en ts formally i nv olving students from appropriate sources The response to o ur request has been both Council, we runs at M i c h i g a n State colleges, the University for the i nvo lv e­ centers as a result o f the informa ti on ob ta i n e d in the surveys, and institutes. and after - 4 extensive committee deliberations, we w o u l d like to indicate a p r e fer en ce for certain arrangements in regard to (A) T h e setting up o f committees and (B) The Sel ec ti on o f students for m em b e r s h i p on those committees. A* The s e tt in g up o f c o m m i t t e e s . 1. I n te gr at ed committee structures seem to be most frequent t h r o u g h ­ out the University, and for reasons stat ed elsewhere, we beli ev e this to be preferable to parallel 2. (See p . 6 ). We c on si der that the s el ection o f one student on which there may be, and we w o u l d argue 3. committees. for example, six faculty members is clearly tokenism, for more b a l a n c e d committee structures. O u r survey i n d i c at ed that far more attention has been paid to involving u n d erg ra du at e students than gr aduate students, that departments for a committee and colleges include gr aduate students and we wo u l d suggest on the various commit­ tees of the units involved. 4. We have also n o t e d that most o f the developments rep orted to us seem to be ad ho c arrangements, not ref le cte d in the bylaws of the departments or colleges, and st ro n g l y suggest that such arrangement be codified into written bylaws. B. The se le ct io n of students for m e m b ers hi p on those c o m m i t t e e s . 1. We r e c o mm en d that student membe rs of committees be se le cte d by their peers, although ot h e r arrangements s ee m to be w or king in a few units. 2. We rec om me nd that all students be i nv olved in determ ini ng the proc ed ur es associated with an academic unit for student partici pa tio n in the governance of that unit. 3. We str o n g l y belie ve that the students selected to p ar ti ci pat e in a given committee of an academic unit should be chosen from a b r o a d base c on ­ gruous with the constit ue nc y of the unit. 4. We recomment that p r o v i s i o n be made for specific m in or it y student representation. 5 - - It m a y i nde e d be the case that a single model will n e v e r fit all de­ par tm en ts o r colleges; and in any event, until we h a v e more inform at io n as to the success of various models, we cannot make ext re me ly sp ec i f i c r e c o m ­ men dations for the various academic units o f the University. commendations p r o p o s e d below, thus, ning which will insure that students are d es i g n e d to be a b e ginning, college level, wit h i n the various centers and institutes o f the University. all include and that they are involved, We to m o n i t o r efforts cess, whe re appropriate, The r e c o m m e n d a ­ reporting pro cedures to a p r o p o s e d new F a cul ty -S tu den t C o m ­ mitt ee on Ac ad e m i c G o v er na nc e whose duties of the report. a begin­ are i n v o l v e d in academi c g o ve rn an ce at the department and tions The three r e ­ and charges are d et ail ed in Part V suggest the formation of the new at involving students in the and to continue to make recommendations committee as the device academic d e ci si on- ma ki ng p r o ­ in this area. Rec om men da ti on I. Each academic department or school w i t h i n the U ni versity will develop methods of involving its students, both u n d e r g r a d u a t e and g r a ­ duate, in the academic de cision-making pro cesses o f that unit, with each unit deciding what makes up its constituency. E.G., it is assum ed that all majors of a given department or school must be the c o n s t i ­ tuents of that department or school; but it will remain to b e de te r m i n e d by each unit w h e t h e r it wishes to include ma j o r - p r e f e r e n c e freshmen and s o p h o ­ mores, inter es te d no -p re f e r e n c e students, minors, etc. Student constituents of a department or school must be involved in det ermining the natu re o f the pa r t i ci pa ti on to be effected. All departments or schools will report their arrangements for b r i n g i n g students into the academic d eci si on -m aki ng process to the Faculty-Student Committee on A c a d e m i c G overnance by O c t o b e r 1, 1970. Reco mm end at io n 2. Every college withi n the U n i v er si ty will develop methods o f i nv olving students, both graduate and undergraduate, in the academic d e ­ cision-making processes of that college, with each college deciding what makes up its constituency. Student constituents o f a college must be i nv ol ve d in de termining the nature of the particip ati on to be effected. All colleges will report th e i r arrangements for b r in g i n g students into the a ca demic d e c i s i o n ­ maki ng pr ocess to the F aculty-Student Committee on A ca de mi c G ov e r n a n c e by Oc t o b e r 1, 1970. Recommen da tio n _3. All centers and institutes with in the U ni v e r s i t y that have academi c responsibilities, or whose work concerns students, e i t h e r graduate or undergraduate, will develop methods of involving students in the d e c i s i o n ­ making p ro cesses o f the center or institute. Students asso cia te d with the center or institute must be involved in deter mi nin g the natur e of the p a r t i c i ­ pation to be effected. All centers and institutes, w h e t h e r aff ected or not, will report thei r arrangements, if any, for br in g i n g students into their d e ­ cision-making processes to the Faculty-Student Committee on A cad em ic G overnance by O c t o b e r 1, 1970. - 6 Part II Student Participation in the A c a d e m i c Council In considering student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the A c a d e m i c Council, Committee h a d the advantage o f the numerous su ggestions for such p a r t i c i ­ pation made in the discussion o f the M a s s e y Report by the Council several meetings this devoted to this top ic during Fall 1969. in the Af t e r e xte n d e d ex amination o f all o f the su ggestions o f f e r e d at that time or sub se qu en tly by members of the Univ ers it y community, the C o m m it te e pr oposes the two r e ­ commendations p r e s e n t e d below. however, it seems Before tur ning to those specific proposals, advisable first to c on s i d e r w hy we rejec ted the ot he r ma j o r suggestions. *' Co mpletely parallel faculty and student g o v e rn in g b o d i e s . syst em at first s e e me d to us to have merit. But let us consider what pletely pa rallel academic gover ni ng structure w o u l d mean. there wo u l d be departmental student faculty committees. from the academic senate. be standing student mittees. current There w o u l d be college faculty committees. a student In a com pletely par allel from the separate academic council system, and there w o u l d also committees simi la r in nature to the existing faculty c o m­ faculty committees reports and wo ul d transmit on the same subjects those reports and the student senate and e v e nt ua ll y the Board of Trustees. O u r Committee (a) Many departments as has been made rejects as the to the student to the President this model and colleges have composed of faculty and students, progress advis ory committees a student a c o m­ In such a system, committees separate There would be Such committees would initiate academic council reasons: advisory This for the and following already set up committees and to adopt such a pl an w o u l d destroy such to integrate students and faculty into one academic - 7 community. (b) This committee was conc er ne d with what could happen if two separate reports were filed on the same to pi c b y the two governments. side r the inevi ta bl e chose to accept friction, a student for example, i f the President and the Board report concerning tenure regulations, report on dormitory regulations. Con­ or a faculty In any event, the committee felt that even the p o s s i b i l i t y o f separate decisions w o u l d fu rther serve to divide the academic community rather than to unify it, and further serve to h i n d e r the de ci si on -ma ki ng process rat he r than to expedite this it. For these central reasons, committee rejects the idea o f co mpletely parallel structures. seen in Part I, however, dividually so choose, partments w o u l d be structures colleges and d ep artments woul d be free, to institute parallel free, structures As was if they in­ at the college and d e ­ if they individ ua ll y so choose, to institute parallel at the college and department level. But we feel strongly that s t u ­ dents and faculty ought to come t o g e t h e r for decision making regarding mutual concerns at the level of the A c a d e m i c Council and thus be in a po si tio n to present a single report on a given issue to the President and the Board. 2. Selection of u ndergraduate students student government organizations. at l a r g e , chosen from current This pr o c e d u r e wo u l d not be consonant with the kinds o f academic questions that members o f the A ca d e m i c Council to consider. At present student government its members from the various ge ographical on campus. Student government grading, etc. does not c ur r i c u l u m development, These at M ic hig an State Unive rs it y draws and living organizations represented concern its elf with such matters as es tab li sh me nt o f new colleges and programs, are a ppropriately ac ademic concerns, faculty and students are asked and should be dealt w ith by chosen for thei r connection with academic affairs. A faculty organi za tio n o r g a niz ed on the same pr in ci pl e as AS MS U w o u l d have its members chosen by virtue of th e i r living in East Lansing, Okemos Surely n o one could argue for such a faculty organization, and Haslett. and we w o u l d insist, - 8 similarly, that location o f a b e d r o o m is n o t an appropriate basi s for e s t a b ­ lishing e li gib i l i t y 3. for student m e m be rs hi p on the A ca demic Council. Sel ec ti on from the various the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l . colleges of n o n -v ot in g student members of Such an arrangement w o u l d answer those w h o have con­ tend ed that giving the vote to students w o u l d d rastically change the natu re o f the Council, Council and make it less the voice o f the faculty. If the A cad em ic con ce rn ed i t s e l f only with matters affecting the faculty, ad vocating only faculty voti ng memb er sh ip w o u l d be tenable. Council has But the A cad e m i c con ce rne d i t s e l f in recent years with the maj or grading report, living conditions of t h e i r causes, in the dormitories, d evelopment the O c t o b e r 15 Moratorium. much as faculty, the ir vote an argument control o f disruptions, and change of the curricula, Thes e are matters an amelioration and pa rt i c i p a t i o n in clearly affecting students as and to refuse students the oppor tun it y to pa rticipate with as well as th e i r voice w o u l d lead to a lack of commitment on the part o f students to any decisions made by the Council. 4. Formation o f a_ student advisory committee to which the Academ ic Council w o u l d be h e l d " a c c o u n t a b l e .11 wo u l d make a recommendation, to deal with that Presumably, committee the A ca d e m i c Council w o u l d be under the obligation recommend at ion in some manner. finition of " ac co unt a b i l i t y . " if such a student The p r o b l e m here is the d e ­ Does e i t h e r a negative vote or a positive vote on any given issue mean that the Ac ad e m i c Council has "ac co un ted "f or a report? Are students from the advisory committee to be given the right to debate in the Ac ad em ic Council? situation? If they are, what change do we have If they are not, how will students be negative vote, e f f e c t i v e l y to request municate from the present able fully to un de r s t a n d a a reconsideration, effec tiv el y to com­ any feeling that t h e i r definition of ac countability has not been met? This Committee of a student concludes that a ccountability woul d not be met by the formation advisory committee. - 9 F or these various reasons, then, we have rejected the above suggestions in favor o f the following recommendations: Re co mm en d a t i o n £. The re shall be one voting undergraduate student sea te d on the Ac ad e m i c Council from each of the thirteen colleges whose pr imary educati on al task is the edu cat io n of the undergraduate. Re c om me nd ati on 5. There shall be six voting graduate students seated on the A c a d e m i c Council, s e l e c t e d from among those colleges which have a graduate or pr of es si ona l training function. No college may be represented by more than one representative at any given time. Gradua te students shall be selected b y the Council o f Graduate Students. It is appropriate now to turn to some specific justifications recommendations. The C om mittee chose the procedure of these of adding un dergraduate students to the A c a d e m i c Council b y virtue of their mem ber sh ip in an academic college. There seems no satisfactory basis on which to eliminate any p a r t i c u ­ lar college. We feel sure that the A cad e m i c Council w o u l d not vote to e l i m i ­ na te the sole faculty r epresentative from a given college on the grounds that we we re getti ng too many members in the council. could not agree to eliminate the student for undergraduate student Accordingly, the committee from any given college in calling representatives on the Academic Council. To those who assert that the addition o f 19 or more students will make the A c a d e m i c Council an unw ieldy body, we w o u l d answer that there is n o e v i ­ dence to suggest that the nature of an already large parliam en ta ry b o d y is changed only b e c a u s e the size o f the b o d y is increased. To those w h o contend that the e l ec ted faculty can be ou t-voted b y a coalition of all students, deans, plus all a strong m in o r i t y o f faculty members, we suggest that there is no evidenc e that faculty, deans or students have e v e r vo te d to ge the r as a group. We agree with those w ho argue that concerns p e c u l i a r to the faculty should be co ns i d e r e d b y the faculty alone. regarding changes Part V of this document makes suggestions in the el e c t e d faculty council to provide a means of dealing with these matters. to students s h ou ld b e We also agree with those who argue that concerns peculia r cons id ere d by students alone. Part V of this document - 10 includes pr oposals to this effect regarding the Student Affairs Committee. However, it seems to this Committee that most o f the actions taken by the A ca de mi c Council in the past several years concerned students O u r r ecommendations A ca de mi c Council and faculty alike. regarding the addition o f u n dergraduates to the are obvious. We h a v e the education o f undergraduates. 13 colleges p r i m ar il y c on cerned w it h We feel that each sented b y one undergr ad uat e student, college should be re p r e ­ chosen from that college's majors or m a j o r p re f e r e n c e students by any s y s te m agreed upon by the students o f that college. The Committee prefers h a v i n g students elect ed b y t h e i r peers, but we realize that elections may not always represent the best way for the s e l e c ­ tion o f students. At the veiy least, any student s ele ct ed to the A ca dem ic Council must be se le ct ed according to procedures agreed upon b y a vote o f the students w i t h i n that college. The rec om me nda ti on concerning graduate students needs special mention. Ou r recommendations duate Students are made following consultation with the Council of G r a ­ and with the approval o f the graduate student representative on this Committee. We b elieve that the addition o f six graduate students sel ected b y the Council o f Graduate Students will be a sufficient m i n i m u m to pre sent a strong and v a r ied graduate student voice in the Aca de mi c Council. Part III Student P a r t ici pa ti on on St anding Committees o f the Ac ad e m i c Council The present several faculty standing committees are a m a j o r component of university decision making; the ir recommendations of the agenda for the Ac ade mi c Council, these committees that careful, and reports provide most and eventually the Senate. It is in de ta il ed scrutiny is given to suggestions for changes in e s t a b l i s h e d programs and to efforts to innovate new programs. Manifestly, the academic decision-making process to which these committees are - 11 central is as signi fic an t for students as for faculty, and i f students to be in vo lve d in those decisions that affect t h e i r academic careers are at MSU, they must have an opportu ni ty to share in the wo rk o f these committees. br in gi ng into committee deliberations their own unique experiences spectives, By and p e r ­ students can make a valuable contribution to the development of academic p o l i c y and legislation. Perhaps more than any other unit of the university, the constitutes the "channels" o f policy-making. committee process Student access to as well as confidence in the integrity o f these channels is best en s u r e d b y student representation on these committees. Since these committees vary in size, and since students have a g r ea te r interest in some committees than others there is n o possible rationale for h a vi ng the same n u m b e r of students on all committees. Therefore, the follow­ ing recommendations p ro vi de for different num bers o f voting student members, with a b r i e f rationale p r o v i d e d for these differences. Re co mm endation (5. The appellation "faculty standi ng committee" shall be changed to "Council st anding committee." Re commendation 1 _. The University Educational Policies Committee shall have six undergr ad ua te students and three graduate students. Re co mm endation 8. The Un iversity C urr i c u l u m Co mmittee shall have six u n d e r ­ graduate students and one graduate student. O f all the uni ver si ty s tanding committees, these t w o - - C u r r i c u l u m and E d ­ ucational Policies--are those most centrally concerned with the academic interests of all students. student voice and vote. Consequently, they should have on the greatest One graduate student m e mb er for the Un iversity C u r r i c u ­ lum C om mittee is p r o p o s e d at the request o f COGS. Re commendation 9. The Un iversity Com mi tt ee on honors Programs shall have six undergraduates and one graduate student. Three of the undergraduates shall be members of the Honors College, chosen by the students of that College; the other three undergraduates shall not be members of the Honors College. The graduate student shall be one who has completed a baccalaur ea te degree in an honors program. - 12 We p r op ose three unde rg ra du ate student members w h o are not in Honors C ol lege in r e cog ni ti on o f the fact that there are honors progr ams in m an y colleges and departments not directly tied to the Honors College, and there are honors se ctions not re stricted to Honors C ol lege students. Re co mm en d a t i o n 1 0 . The U niversity International Projects Committee and the Library C om mittee shall have three u ndergraduates and two graduate students. These un de rgr ad ua te members 15. Two graduate membe rs are p r o p o s e d in k ee pi ng with Recom me nd at ion are p r o p o s e d at the request of COGS. Re co mm en d a t i o n 11. The U niversity Faculty Tenure Com mi tte e shall have three undergr ad ua te students and one graduate student. Students on the Faculty Tenure C om mittee have an appropriate place in that Co mmittee's concern for the making o f general p o li cy concerning tenure. W h e t h e r students s h o u l d b e in volved in the judicial the Co mmittee is less apparent. (case appeal) function of Accordingly, we make the following re co m m e n ­ dations Reco mm end at io n 1 2 . The Un iversity Faculty Tenure Committee shall report to the C om mittee on A c a d e m i c Governance on th ei r de termination concerning the inclusion o f students in the deliberations o f the Committee. Re commen dat i on 1 5 . The Un iversity Business Affairs Committee shall have three undergra du at e students and one graduate student. The r e c omm en da ti on regarding student membe rs hi p on the Business Affairs Committee is made whi le a decision of the Board of Trustees sibilities o f that C o m m it te e is pending. about the r e sp on ­ It is recog ni ze d that the Board's ultimate decision m a y suggest a different p a t t e r n of student representation. Re c om me nd ati on 1 4 . student members. This The University Faculty Affairs C om mittee shall have n o r e c om me nd ati on presu me s the establis hm ent of a Committee on Academi c - 13 Gover nan ce (see Part V), which shall assume functions o f legitimate concern to students n o w as si gne d to the F ac ulty A f fa irs Committee. committee is e st ab li she d, for matters insurance, of ex c l u s i v e etc., If such a new the Faculty A ff ai rs Co mmittee w o u l d be responsible concern to the faculty: as e n u m e r a t e d in the Bylaws salary, fringe benefits, (5.4.3.3). R e co mm en da tio n 1 5 . E i t h e r three o r six und ergraduate students are to be ap pointed to the s tanding committees. The p a tt ern of the Unive rs it y C u r r i ­ culum Com mittee of using b a s i c su bcommittees in social sciences, natural sciences and liberal arts to reach a decision in matters relating to those areas, is to be f ol l o w e d in the se lection of und er gra du at es for all comm it ­ tees. E i t h e r one or two students shall be chosen from each o f these areas, and all colleges o f the Univ er si ty shall be allocated to an appropriate area for the p u r p o s e o f selecting students. Re co mm e n d a t i o n 1 6 . Initially the thirteen undergra dua te members of the Council r e p r e s e n t i n g the various colleges p r i m ar il y co ncerned with und e r ­ graduate e d u ca ti on will determine whic h colleges will provide undergraduate student re pre se n t a t i o n on the several Un iv e r s i t y standing committees. Each college will then be responsible for selecting the student representative(s) to the separate s ta nd in g committees. Student constituents of a college must be i nv o l v e d in d e te rm in ing the sele cti on procedures. For p u r p o s e s o f clarification, the colleges p a tt er n f ol low ed by the Cu rr i c u l u m Com mi tte e in s e tt in g up ba si c subcommittees are as follows: College; as they are assigned in the LIBERAL ARTS: SO CI A L SCIENCE: omics, James Madison, Resources, Arts Business, and Letters, J u st in Morrill, University Co mm uni ca ti on Arts, Education, Home E c o n ­ Social Science; N ATU RA L SCIENCE: E ngineering, Huma n Medicine, Agri cu ltu re and Natural Lyman Briggs, Natural Science, V e t e r ­ inary Medicine. It s h o u l d be n o t e d that although the n u m b e r o f colleges areas is 3-6-6, in the respective the n u m b e r of students is ap proximately the same in each of the three areas. Recom men da ti on 1 7 . The Council o f G raduate Students will be responsible for s el ecting gr adu at e s tu dent members o f the separate U n i ve rs ity standing committees. - 14 - Part IV Spe c i f i c M i n o r i t y Rep re se nt ati on in A c a d e m i c Government. (Blacks, Latin Americans, and Nati ve Americans) R e co mm en da tio n 1 8 . There shall be additional seats for m i n o r i t y student re­ pr es e n t a t i o n on the A c a d e m i c Council, and all standing committees o f the Council. The means o f selecting these students will be d ev eloped by the ap­ prop ri ate m ino ri ty groups and re por t e d to the Co mmittee on Aca d e m i c G o v e r ­ nance b y O c t o b e r 1, 1970. Re co mm e n d a t i o n 1 9 . There shall be 10 seats on the A ca de mic Counc il in order to p r ov id e for s pe ci f i c mi nority representation. Re commen dat i on 2 0 . There shall be 3 mi nor it y seats on the U n i v er si ty E d u c a ­ tional Policies Committee, The Un iversity Cu rr i c u l u m Committee, the Uni versity Committee on Honor s Programs, the U ni versity International Projects Committee, the U n i ver si ty Li brary Committee, and there shall be 2 mi no ri ty seats on The Univ er sit y Faculty Tenure Co mm it te e and the University Com mi tt ee on Business Affairs, in o r d e r to provide for s pe ci fic mi no rit y representation on these committees. Re c o mm en da tio n 21. There shall be 7 m in o r i t y seats on the Univer si ty Student Affairs Committee in or d e r to p r ov id e for spe cific mi nority representation. R e co mm en da tio n 2 2 . There shall be 5 mi nority seats on the U n iv er si ty Co mmittee on A c a d e m i c G o ve rn an ce in ord er to provide for specific mi nority representation. Reco mm end at io n 23. While there may be no universal model for i nc lusion of students into tKe’ academic departments and colleges of the University, every department and college will develop the n e c e s sa ry methods to insure minority repr es ent at io n w h e r e v e r possible. In light o f today's very nature realities, our representative structures by th ei r fail to air certain points of view. m in o r i t y groups de f i n e d as Blacks, It is o ur contention that Latin Americans, and Native A me ricans have s u f f e r e d most u n d e r these kinds o f representa ti ve structures w i t h i n o u r society. The recom me nda ti on s set forth are not attempts to negate the predom in an t white viewpoint, n o r for that m a t t e r to stalemate a p a rti cu la r vote. It is rather an attempt to neg a t e the inequities and deficiencies so apparent in the re p r e ­ sentative s tructure at least until that time when such pr ovisions necessary. are n o longer - 15 O u r recommendations concerning m i n o r i t y repr es ent at io n on the A ca d e m i c Council, the standing committees o f the Council, the colleges and departments are the result of e x t e ns iv e consult ati on w i t h the organiza ti ons re presentative o f the m in or it y groups as defined above. We be l i e v e our recommendations re­ flect the m i n i m u m n u m b e r of m i nor it y student involvement which will insure just representation. Part V Add itional Re commendations One of the problems b e f or e the New C o m m it te e on Student Par ti cip at io n in Aca d e m i c Government c oncerned the q ue stion of students represen ta ti on on the Faculty Affairs Committee of the A c a d e m i c Council. It was argued on the one h a n d that inasmuch as that committee h a d in the past co ncerned itself wi t h b y l a w changes and oth er reforms in a ca demic governance, students should be represe nt ed if th e i r ideas and aspirations were to be treated with the seriousness they deserved. On the other hand, pe rsuasive arguments were offer ed that the s h o u l d ha ve a clear and unique voice faculty for the exp re ss ion o f those matters that were of p ri mar y concern to faculty q u a faculty. T o resolve this dilemma, namely, to create a structure that w o u l d enable students to pa rt ic i p a t e in deliberations over future changes in the form of ac ademic go vernance and to sa feguard the faculty voice in matters that are o f pr i m a r y concern to th em as faculty, we pr o p o s e the following: A. The Faculty Affairs C o m m i t t e e . Re commen dat i on 24. The Faculty Affairs Comm it tee (See page 13) shall report to the E l ect ed F a c u l t y Council, rather than to the Aca d e m i c Council, on matters o f exclusive concern to the faculty: salary, fringe benefits, insurance, etc. as e n u m b e r a t e d in the Bylaws (5.4.3.3). The Bylaws of the Un iversity shall be changed to provide that the E le cted Faculty Council may byffififlfriffi vote of those present and voting y refer matters of exclusive concern to the faculty directly to the Ac ad em ic Senate. - 16 R ecommendation 25. The Faculty Affairs Committee shall be re li eve d o f its direct responsib il it y concerning the Bylaws. As s t a te d on Page 9, we believe that "concerns p e c u l i a r to the faculty should be cons ide re d by the faculty alone...." that the Faculty Affai rs Committee, Accordingly, we here pr opose c om posed solely o f members of the faculty, deal with faculty problems and report to the E lec te d Faculty Council. B. The Faculty-Student Committee on A ca dem ic G o v e r n a n c e . Re commendation 2 6 . The Ac ad em ic Council shall create a Univ er si ty Committee on Ac ad e m i c Go vernance composed of one faculty m e m b e r and one student to r e ­ present each o f the colleges of the University. The m e c h a n i s m for student inclusion on the Committee shall originate within the colleges. In addition, five faculty members shall be selected by the Committee on Committees to i n ­ clude all three faculty ranks. Recommendation 2 7. The University Committee on Ac ad e m i c Go vernance shall be charged with the responsibility for continuing review of the Bylaws of the University to assure that they are bein g o bs erved and with the responsibi li ty for making recommendations to the Council for w h a t e v e r changes in the Bylaws the Committee's investigations indicate. Specifically, this Committee is also charged w i th the responsibility for continuing study of the steps b e i n g taken throughout the University to involve students in academic government in accord with the action taken by the Ac ad e m i c Council on this present report and with the r esponsibility for makin g recommendations to the Council as the Committee's investigations indicate. One w o u l d have to be extremely insensitive to the current ethos not to recognize the w i d e - s p r e a d concern over the go vernance of institutions o f hig he r learning. or aspiration Regardless of one's p h i l o s o p h i c approach, for change, vest ed interest, the fact remains that rarely in the h is tory of hig he r educ at ion have so many questions been raised concerning who shou ld be .involved and what form the involvement sho ul d take in the governing of colleges and universities. Institutions that have b e e n lethargic or complacent or have relied upon unexamined out -m od ed forms o f organization or false assumptions have done so to the ir sorrow. It may have been sufficient in the past to resolve the p r o ­ blems created b y new social pressures in ad hoc fashion. It seems likely that - 17 in the future such a p o l ic y w o u l d result in at least governance b y "crisis resolution" and at worst No committee is chaos and anarchy. likely to o f f e r a p a n a c e a for the complex p ro blems of the rapidly changing social s y st em and certainly n o such claim is made the Co mmittee on A c a d e m i c Governance. It would, however, for appear p ru dent to establish some agency that w o u l d be s p e c i fi cal ly charged with the admittedly difficult, perhaps impossible, ernance that might be task o f an ticipating changes in academic g o v ­ a cc om pli sh ed in rational fashion. the likelihood o f avoiding p r ec ip it ate It wo u l d seem that actions un der conditions of high t e n ­ sion w o u l d be improved. C. Student Affairs Committee On Page 9 of this report, we state d o ur conviction that cerns shoul d be h a n d l e d by faculty alone, dents so "concerns p e c u l i a r to the s tu ­ should be c on s i d e r e d by the students At present, the Bylaws. President (1) "to examine, study and evaluate as they affect and advise the Vice President Dean o f Students, alone." the Student Affairs Co mmittee has two m a j o r charges und er for Student Affairs University as faculty con­ all policies o f the Vice academic achievement in the for Student Affairs, and the A c a d e m i c Council thereupon the Associate (5.4.8.2) "review and re commend changes in regulations gov er nin g student d ev eloped and p r o p o s e d by living units and (2) to conduct as and governing groups" and to "initiate, review and rec ommend p r o p o s e d changes in the p rocedures through which such regulations are p r o m u l g a t e d and Ac ad e m i c Council" (5.4.8.3). The secon d charge, licies. ...make appropriate recommendations to the detailed in 5.4.8.3, thus deals with living unit p o ­ We b el iev e such p ol icies w o u l d be more e ff ec ti vel y and appropriately h a n d l e d by a group o r g a ni zed in terms of living units. Accordingly, we propose - 18 the following: R e co mm en da tio n 28. Secti on 5.4.8.3. the Student A f fa ir s Committee. If this that, shall be elim in ate d from the charge o f reco mm en dat io n is approved by the Council, w e further p ropose in k e e p i n g with this action, A S M S U and /or the Student Affairs Co mmittee initiate amendment o f the A c a d e m i c Fre edom Report, sections 5.2 and 5.3 to read as follows: 5.2 It is recommended, however, that regulations de veloped by living units be r e v i e w e d b y the appropriate governing group. The governing group, afte r r e v i ew in g the regulations, shall re fe r the m a t t e r back to the living unit, t o g e t h e r with any suggestions b y the living unit, forward the regulation, t o g e t h e r with any r e c o m ­ it cares to make, to the Student Board o f ASMSU. The Student Boar d o f A S M S U shall review the regulations and forward them, to ge th er with any recommendations they care to make, to the Vice President Student Affairs. The Vice President pu b li c his decision 5.3 A f t e r review the m a t t e r shall be returned to the m a j o r g o v e r n ­ ing gr ou p whi ch shall mend at ion s for change. for for Student Affairs shall make regarding the regulations. A m a j o r g o v e rn in g group or the Student Board of A SM S U may originate regulations, but such regulations must be referred directly to the a p ­ pr o p r ia te living units, whe re up on the procedure de scribed in the p r e ­ ceding p a r a g r a p h shall be followed. R e c om me nd at ion 29. The Student Affairs Committee shall be composed of one undergr ad ua te student from each college. The Vice President for Student Affairs and the A s s o ci at e Dean of Students shall serve ex officio without vote. - 19 Re co mm en d a t i o n 30. The n e w l y cons tit ut ed Student Affairs Committee shall be ch arged to examine, study and evaluate all policies of the Vice President for Student Affairs and advise the Vice President for Student Affairs, the A s s oc ia te Dean of Students, and the A c a d e m i c Council thereupon. Re co mm en d a t i o n 3 1 . The ne wl y co nstituted Student Affairs Co mmittee shall also be c h a rge d with the present duties of the Committee on A c a d e m i c Right and Re sp on sibilities as d es cribed in Section 2.3 o f the A c a d e m i c Freedom Report. 31 If R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ^ in ke eping with this is ap proved b y the Council, we f ur th er prop os e that, action, ASMSU and/or the Student Affairs Co mmittee ini­ tiate amendment of the Ac ad em ic Freedom Report to eliminate section 2.3. R e c om me nd at ion 3 2 . One student, e i t h e r graduate or undergraduate, to be s e l e c t e d from the student me mbers of the Aca de m i c Council b y those members, will serve on the Steering Com mittee of the University. This Committee believes this representation is ne ce ss ary to insure student voice in determining what matters will be b ro ught bef or e the A ca dem ic Council. Re sp ec tf ull y submitted, James B. McKee, Chairman Sam Baskett Erwin Bettinghaus Edwa rd Carlin Michael H arr is on John M a s t er so n Gina Schaack Harry Chancey Mich ae l Freed Charles M cMi ll an February 17, 1970 APPENDIX C REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE ACADEMIC GOVERNMENT THE REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Government Approved by the Academic council November 17 and 24, 1970 Issued by the Office of the Secretary of the Faculties December 3, 1970 - 2 - COMPOSITION OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL Present Proposed Presiding Officers: President 1* * 1* provost 1 1 Elected Faculty Council: Elected Faculty Representatives Steering Committee: Faculty Members 56 56 5 5 Subtotal 61 61 20 20 Appointed Council: Deans (of Colleges; of Students; of Graduate School; of international Programs) Ex Officio M e m b e r s : Officers and Directors 6* 6 Chairmen of Standing Committees 9* 12 Ombudsman 1* Subtotal 1* 19 16* Student Representatives: Undergraduates 2* Graduates 1* 15 6 10 Representatives-at-large Subtotal TOTAL * Non-voting members ** May vote to break ties 3* 102 31 133 - 3 - PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL Student Committee (Total) Faculty Total Curriculum (2 5 members) Educational Policies UnderMembersgraduate Graduate at-large Total 16 (2 7 ) 16 6 3 2 11 14 0 0 0 0 14 3 1 2 6 14 6 1 2 9 14 3 2 2 1 14 3 2 2 1 5 4 2 3 2 2 *Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, Budget Faculty Honors and Academic (1 4 ) Tenure (2 0 ) Programs (2 3 ) International Projects Library *Student (21) (2 1 ) Affairs (1 7 ) Business Affairs ♦Academic ♦Building, (2 1 ) Governance ♦Public Safety 6^ 14 (3 6 ) 1_ (1 4 ) Lands & Planning ♦ New committee - 18 (2 0 ) 14 16 - 2 11 1 18 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 6 - 4 - 1.2.6. Renumber as "1.2.7." For "voting faculty" read "qualified voting members": Introduce (preceding the section just treated) a new section as follows: "1.2.6. The qualified academic besides unit the sentatives voting shall voting members be a particular understood faculty, selected of for the that to comprise, student unit repre­ under these rules." 2.3. Delete "Department and School Faculty," reading simply "Organization." 2.3.1. For "voting faculty" read "qualified voting members." 2.3.2. For "voting faculty" read "qualified voting members." 2.3.3. New version: "2.3.3. Department thereto, 2.5. A new or school shall be published. voting members of a review its exceed five section 2.3.4. and "2.5. Student to bylaws be at and regular amendments The department or qualified school intervals shall not to years." substituted 2.3.4.1.: "2.5.1. for Council and school Revisions * Representation Each or department institute bilities, * bylaws, or that whose has and academic work each center responsi­ concerns students, The term "Council Revisions," which recurs throughout this Report refers to the Report of Professor McKee's committee in the amended version which was submitted to the Academic Senate. either graduate develop or patterns undergraduate, for its the involvement of sion-making processes shall significant students by in the which deci­ policy is formed. Each is department, charged student the with school, defining constituency, question majors, its However, student in the which The be is to The of responsible of which office. such for their a to its sophomores, etc. full-time participation in selecting, own choice, councils they are party. to deciding the college constituency the of shall elected unit in terms tives one its include enrolled to of in enrolled. students sentatives and entitled of with students, regularly affairs institute extent shall freshmen be or addition no-preference shall patterns in constituency every he the namely, whether, major-preference interested center office be one serve an for year. according their and student A to repre­ committees representa­ student additional shall term may of be - 6 - "2.5.5. Membership shall in student "2.5.6. all on view, cases or carry with matters, (1.2.1. the and for reserved with the it it, for right the 1.2.3.), that or vote. to well are as fall council's that these to right as matters by committee external committee's except fically "2.5.7. council carries all internal within a representatives, Membership vote in pur­ speci­ rules. The reserved exceptions are of three sorts, namely, "2.5.7.1. Matters the of faculty, leaves, housing, Matters such health the tain the pursuit salary, other service the the duties duties fringe and the that obligation as inquiry of distinctively of intellectual university detached and affecting faculty's the their to retirement; professional namely, concern as insurance benefits, "2.5.7.2. exclusive truth; a and faculty, flow to from main­ authority center of of disinterested - 7 - 112 . 5 . 7 . 3 . Matters tively the in which professional faculty decisions stantive is, the the are rights issues of the of the of faculty them that promotion, individual whose under in sub­ tenure, re-appointment, dismissal of i s s u e , as concerning or places at distinc­ members appointment the rules of tenure. "2.5.8. Any act which diminishes, the distinctively promises or duties the the interests bidden "2.5.9. of by dition not, for "2.5.9.1. rights destructive University in is the teaching student Nothing in construed the demands a the sufficient to com­ professional is a of or and of is for­ necessary con­ rules. teaching and matter the competency however, teaching just of these Professional faculty suspends University: condition function is for remains a concern. these as rules granting faculty for it from an an the considerate the duties legitimate attention teachina. be immunity assiduous, and of shall informed to - 8 - "2.5.9.2. Student representatives may perfect propriety questions of general the "Code ity") to where policy of or are "2.5.9.3. in or inputs evidence directly in poor performance, but not available — especially the which must teaching students figure faculty's the observe significantly judgment whenever decisions concerning substantive issues tenure in of "2.5.9.4. the — in disallowed. regarding performances for needed though practice Student remedies are ( as Responsibil­ negligent remedies available, designed Teaching provide teaching raise with All of being are process formed. agencies at the level of department, school, institute residential college (the units in which are to formal provide students to in that order considered basic substantive originate) expressly decisions instructed opportunities represent their alona or their views with views, may other for be evidence. - 9 - "2.5.9.5. If, however, for example decision the in for dismissal tenure, a case under that the the as below University, would the rules students performance regarded requiring re-appointment re-appointment whose 3.5.6. it should chance, of a a or of favored person the faculty the level faculty's of the judgment carry. The Council's revision: "3.5.6. The College Advisory Council shall publish its minutes." 3.6. A new section to be substituted for Council Revisions 3.6., 3.6.1., and 3.6.2.: "3.6. Student Representation "3.6.1. Each college for the its students Each the extent the in the which is of its shall affairs University. of of decision-making policy student entitled one is with enrolled be patterns involvement charged regularly student in by college Every develop significant processes "3.6.2. shall formed. defining constituency. full-time to college participate in the The rules 2.5.9.5. laid down in Sections shall be understood representation at the the departmental 4.3.3.3.1. "4.3.3.3.1. - and college school Business the Academic the form mendation When be a "4.3.3.3.2. of well to the the may consideration adopted as a Council shall all back to When a matter may as the or be has been Council often Council recom­ Council. subject referred Council or it may for be Matters by the Senate reported it. again sary. cases it initially be be presented. to by is not further in or Academic shall It revision: before originating referred at shall report recommendation it as consideration Senate a amendment. back student brought from presented, to govern Council's requiring ordinarily in as - level." 4.3.3.3.2. The of to 2.5.3. be as Upon to to the returned the resubmitted Senate, to Senate deems resubmission the Senate, recommendation shall the a by it Council neces­ the report be subject - 11 - to amendment amendments majority and voting. the a of Senate; require of those The vote adoption time sequent the shall vote question at in of the of present on of the the initial presentation majority a those shall main report or sub­ be by present and v o t i n g ." 4.4.1.1. "4.4.1.1. The Council's revision been substituted "the student The Council the the deans, and designated shall Provost, representatives, "4.4.1.1.1. ("representatives" "members" in the has phrase members"): Academic President, for the members ex the consist of elected faculty student of the representatives, the Steering officio members. Committee, The sub-group consisting of the President, the Provost, representatives, the University Affairs, and faculty Committee Elected shall Faculty on of Faculty Compensation, Budget, members faculty chairman Committee Faculty Academic the the of and the the Steering constitute Council." the - 12 4 . 4 . 1 . 1 . 3 . - 4 . 4 . 1.1.4. The is order to be of Revisions reversed: accordingly. texts Editorial for "faculty ing committee "4.4.1.1.3. 4.4.1.1.3. the standing of the The of (This change 4.4.1.1.4. renumbered in committee" 4.4.1.1.4.: read "stand­ Council." third the and are sub-group Student term signify consist Representatives. shall both shall be understood representatives to and representatives-at-large.) "4.4.1.1.4. The Academic following Vice the of "4.4.1.2.1. officio members: the the Student Affairs; administrative officer in admissions, scholarships registration; the Undergraduate Education; of the Director Honors charge and of the College; the Director of Continuing Education; the Director of Libraries; the each standing of Council have for chairman The shall President Director 4.4.1.2.1. ex Council the of Council; the committee Ombudsman." revision: All members with the officer be of the exception and voting the Academic of the Ombudsman, members." Council, presiding shall Delete "Number and Election of College Representa­ tives" and read “Faculty Representatives." Note that the renumbering in the Council revisions for the whole sequence 4.4.2.1. - 4.4.2.1.9. is rescinded. For ii ii n ii H n H ii ii 4.4.2.1. 4.4.2.2. 4.4.2.3. 4.4.2.4. 4.4.2.5. 4.4.2.6. 4.4.2.7. 4.4.2.8. 4.4.2.9. 4.4.3.1. 4.4 .2.4. read II II II II II II II II II 4.4.2.01. 4.4.2.02. 4.4.2.03. 4.4.2.04. 4.4.2.05. 4.4.2.06. 4.4.2.07. 4.4.2.08. 4.4.2.09. 4.4.2.10. The Council revision with an editorial rephrasing: "standing committees of the Council" for "Council standing committees." "4.4.2.04. The election of representatives to the Academic Council and to standing committees of the Council shall be deemed an external matter for a college voting faculty (1.2.3.-1.2.4.). 4.4.2.6. For "college" read "faculty" in the two instances of the phrase "elected college representative." "4.4.2.06. The term of office of an elected faculty representative shall be two years. No individual may serve more than two consecutive terms as an elected faculty representative. (When a college - 14 - is first established, half the representatives elected in the first election shall serve a term of only one year, namely, those receiving fewer votes.) 4.4.3. Delete "4.4.3. Number and Election of Non-College Faculty Representatives, 11 and renumber 4.4.3.1. as "4.4.2.10. " 4.4.3. Introduce a new section (corresponding to Council Revisions 4.4.2.2. - 4.4.5.4.), as follows: "4.4.3. Student Representatives "4.4.3.01. undergraduate Student Representatives: Each of the colleges whose primary educational task is the education of undergraduates shall have one undergrad­ uate student representative. "4.4.3.02. The College of Human Medicine, the College of Osteopathic Medicine, and the College of Veterinary Medicine shall each have one representative, either an undergraduate or a student working toward a professional degree. "4.4.3.03. These representatives shall be chosen according to procedures established by a vote of the student constituency of the several colleges. - 15 - "4.4.3.04. The term of office of a student representative shall be one year. A representative may serve an addi­ tional term of office. Terms of office shall coincide with the aca­ demic year. "4.4.3.05. Graduate Student Representatives; The graduate students of the University shall have six representatives selected from among those colleges which have a graduate training function. No college may be represented by more than one representative at a time. "4.4.3.06. The graduate student representatives shall be selected by the Council of Graduate Students (COGS). "4.4.3.07. The term of office of a graduate student representative shall be one year. A representative may serve an additional term. Terms of office shall coincide with the academic year. "4.4.3.08. Student Representatives-at-large: To ensure a systematic representation of the views of non-whites, ten seats shall be reserved on the Academic Coun­ cil for student representatives-at-large. - 16 - "4.4.3.08.1. Of these ten positions, at least six shall be reserved for non-whites. "4.4.3.08.2. These positions shall be filled by elections-at-large, that is, by elections that involve the total student community. "4.4.3.08.3. The slate of candidates-at-large shall be prepared by a Student Committee on Nominations consisting of the following five persons: the student member of the Steering Committee (4.5.1.1.2.), three undergraduates — at least two of whom shall be non-white — appointed by the chairman of the Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU), and three graduate students — at least two of whom shall be non-white — appointed by the president of the Council of Graduate Students (COGS). The student member of the Steering Committee shall be responsible for assembling the Committee and shall preside as chairman at its meetings. The Committee shall report to the student representative of the Council. - 17 - "4.4.3.08.4. The slate prepared by the Committee on Nominations shall name at least two candidates for each position to be filled. The Committee is free to set its own rules. it is, however, expressly instructed to consult with the established non-white organizations, to enter­ tain nominating petitions from student groups, and to provide in the ballot for the possibility of write-ins. "4.4.3.08.5. It shall be understood that these positions for representatives-atlarge do not include the seats in the Council alluded to in Sections 4.4.3.01., 4.4.3.02., and 4.4.3.05. "4.4.3.08.6. A student member of a non-white minority may according to ordinary processes be elected to represent a college, or designated to repre­ sent the graduate students, with­ out reference to his minority status. The student then serves not by virtue of his special status as the member of a minority 18 - but by virtue of his ordinary status as the member of a college or as a graduate student. Such a student shall not be counted in determining the number of non-white student representativesat-large that remain on any given occasion to be chosen. "4.4.3.08. 7. The purpose of these provisions is not to dignify our separations or to make permanent our divisions but to affirm the pluralism that is indispensable to our form of community. Our purpose is to institute a guarantee, to ensure a result not certified by the ordinary processes of election, namely, that the voice of the non-white minorities in this University shall on all occasions, irrespective of the results of college and graduate student elections, be positively heard. 'Not more than six' is the imposi­ tion of a quota; 'at least six' is, on the contrary, the acknow­ ledgement of a right. - 19 - "4.4.3.08.8. The term of office of a student representative-at-large shall be one year. A representative-at- large may serve an additional term. Terms of office shall coincide with the academic year." The renumbering of Sections 4.4.4. - 4.4.5.4. (=4.4.6. - 4.4.7.4. in the Council revisions) is rescinded. The numbers now appearing in the printed Bylaws are to be retained. The Council's revision 1970, page 3): (Minutes of November 10, The Academic Council acts for and on behalf of the Academic Senate, subject to the provisions of Sections 4.3.2. and 4.3.3.3." The Council's revision (it is assumed that the introduction of a student into the Steering Committee, as provided in the Council revision of Section 4.5.1.1.2., is approved): The Elected Faculty Council shall meet at regular intervals. absence the Provost, The President, or in his shall preside. The Secre­ tary of the Faculties shall serve as secretary. The voting membership of the Elected Faculty Council shall consist of the elected faculty representatives; the chairman of the University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensa­ tion, and Academic Budget,* and the faculty members of the Steering Committee. n f f i n p r m a \; vnt<=> to hrp aV pc The presiding Mi n i i f o c : i"i -F a ll - 20 - meetings of the Elected Faculty Council shall be circulated to all members of the faculty. 4.4.5.4. The renumbering in the Council revision (=4.4.7.4.) is rescinded. The text remains the same. 4.5.1.1. - 4.5.1.7. "4.5.1.1. The Council revision, editorially modified: The Steering Committee shall be composed of six members, as follows: "4.5.1.1.1. Five members shall be elected by the voting faculty of the University for two-year terms. No more than one member may come from any one college. "4.5.1.1.2. One student, either a graduate or an undergraduate, shall be selected by the student representatives of the Academic Council from among their number for a one-year term. "4.5.1.1.3. No member is eligible to serve more than two terms consecutively. Steering Committee members shall serve as mem­ bers of the Academic Council in addition to their college’s other representatives. The Steering Commit­ tee shall elect its own chairman and secretary. - "4.5.1.2. Z _L - Faculty members of the Steering Committee may not serve concurrently as college repre­ sentatives on the Academic Council "4.5.1.3. (4.4.2.5.). Either two or three faculty members of the Steering Committee shall complete their terms each year and be up for re-election or replace­ ment. The Academic Council and the Committee on Committees shall each nominate two candidates for each position to be filled. Thus, the voting faculty will choose among four nominees for each position open. "4.5.1.4. The election of faculty members to the Steer­ ing Committee shall be deemed an external matter for college voting faculties (1.2.3. 1.2.4.). "4.5.1.5. The election of faculty members to the Steer­ ing Committee shall be conducted by the Secre­ tary of the Faculties annually in the second week in May. Election shall be decided by a plurality of votes. office July 1. Elected members take The student representative selected to serve on the Steering Committee (4.5.1.1.2.) shall be named to the Secretary of the Faculties. "4.5.1.6. Faculty positions on the Steering Committee vacated during a term of office shall be filled by appointment of the Elected Faculty Council. - 22 - The student position, if vacated during a term of office, shall be filled by a student chosen by the student representatives of the Academic Council from among their number." The Council revisions: The Steering Committee shall act as an agency through which individual faculty members or students, or faculty or student groups and organizations, may initiate action. The Steering Committee, in consultation with the President or the Provost, shall prepare the agenda for meetings of the Academic Council and the Academic Senate. Before each regularly scheduled meeting of the Academic Senate or the Academic Council, the Steering Committee shall hold a duly announced meeting open to any member of the Academic Senate or of the University's student body at which suggestions for agenda items will be heard and any proposals, complaints, inquiries, etc., will be duly processed." The Council revision: The Committee on Committees shall consist of one faculty member from each departmentally organized college, one faculty member from the group of residential colleges, and one faculty - 23 - member from the non-college faculty group. The committee shall elect its chairman. Only newly-elected college representatives to the Academic Council are eligible for election to the Committee on Committees. Election to the Committee on Committees shall be by vote of the elected college Academic Council faculty representatives of the respective colleges. The term of office is two years. Provisions shall be made to stagger elections to assure continuity." 5. - 5.2.3. "5• The Council revision (the Council's amended number sequence has been altered): The Standing Committees of the Academic Council "5.1. Nature and Establishment of the Standing Committees of the Academic Council "5.1.1. A Council standing committee is any committee whose function is deemed so important, and the permanent continuity of whose activity is so essential to effective academic government, that the Council establishes it under that title. "5.1.2. There shall be the following Council standing committees: University Curriculum Committee University Educational Policies Committee University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget - 24 - University Faculty Tenure committee university Committee on Honors Programs University International Projects Committee university Library Committee university Student Affairs Committee university Committee on Business Affairs university Committee on Academic Governance University Committee on Public Safety University Committee on Building, Lands and Planning "5.2. General Rules Governing Standing Committees of the Academic Council "5.2.1. Subcommittees or ad hoc committees of Council standing committees shall exist at the discre­ tion of the parent committees. The advisability of the continuance of subcommittees or ad hoc committees shall be raised annually in the parent committees." 5.2.2. "5.2.2. The Council Revisions 5.2.2. - 5.2.2.1.2. have been renumbered. The heading "5.2.2. Council Committee Membership" has been expunged. Intro­ duce the new heading: Faculty Membership "5.2.2.1. The term of office of elected faculty members of all Council standing com­ mittees shall be three years. Pro­ visions shall be made to stagger elections to assure continuity. Terms - 25 - of office shall begin on January 1, and terminate on December 31. "5.2.2.2. No member of the faculty may serve as a voting member of more than one Council standing committee at a time (6.1.3.). No elected faculty member of a Council standing committee shall serve conse­ cutive terms on the same Council standing committee. 5.2.2.3. "5.2.2.3. The Council Revision 5.2.2.1.3. redrafted: Departmentally Organized Colleges; The voting faculty of each departmentally organized college shall elect a member to each Council standing committee from two candidates for each position .nominated by the College Advisory Council. "5.2.2.4. Non-College Faculty: The non-college voting faculty shall elect one member to each of the Council standing commit­ tees. The pattern of nomination and election shall be determined by the non-college faculty group in consulta­ tion with the Office of the Secretary of the Faculties. - 26 - "5.2.2.5. Residential Colleges "5.2.2.5.1. The voting faculty of each residential college shall elect a member to each of three committees — the Curriculum Committee, the Educational Policies Committee, and the Committee on Academic Governance. These members shall be elected from two candidates for each position nominated by the College Advisory Council. "5.2.2.5.2. In addition, the voting faculty of the group of residential colleges shall jointly elect a member to each Council standing committee except the Curriculum Committee, the Educational Policies Committee, and the Committee on Academic Governance. These members shall be elected from two candidates for each position nominated jointly by the College Advisory Councils of the residential colleges. - 27 - "5.2.2.6. Two committees are excluded from the purview of Sections 5.2.2.3., 5.2.2.4., and 5.2.2.5.2., namely, the Student Affairs Committee and the Committee on Public Safety. The membership of these committees is defined in Sections 5.4.08.1. and 5.4.11.1. respectively. "5.2.2.7. If an elected faculty member of a Council standing committee is unable to fill his office for a term or longer, a replacement may be appointed by the respective College Advisory Council or group of residential College Advisory Councils." 5.2.3. - 5.2.3.2. "5.2.3. The Council Revisions 5.2.2.2. - 5.2.2.2.2., renumbered: Student Membership "5.2.3.1. The term of office of student members of all Council standing committees shall be one year. A student member may serve an additional term of office. Terms of office shall coincide with the academic year. "5.2.3.2. No student may serve as a voting member of more than one Council standing committee at a time." 5.2.3.3. - 5.2.3.4. The Council Revisions 5.2.2.2.3. - 5.2.2.2.4., reformulated: "5.2.3.3. Undergraduates: The undergraduate members of a Council standing committee shall be in number - 28 - three or six: the number varies according to the rules laid down hereafter for each of the committees. "5.2.3.3.1. For the purpose of distributing the undergraduate representatives so far as possible according to com­ petency in the several areas of instruction, the colleges primarily concerned with undergraduate educa­ tion shall be grouped as follows: the Liberal Arts Group: College of Arts & Letters Justin Morrill College University College the Social Science G r o u p : College of Business College of Communication Arts College of Education College of Human Ecology James Madison College College of Social Science the Natural Science Group; College of Agriculture & Natural Resources College of Engineering College of Human Medicine - 29 - Lyman Briggs College College of Natural Science College of Osteopathic Medicine College of Veterinary Medicine "5.2.3.3.2. Each of these groups is to be equally represented in the stand­ ing committees of the Council. Thus, if three undergraduate members are to be chosen, one member shall come from each of the groups; if six members, two shall come from each group. ”5.2.3.3.3. The responsibility for establishing the procedures for determining which colleges shall on a given occasion be called upon to elect undergraduate members shall lie with the undergraduate student representatives on the Academic Council (acting together with the student representatives of the Colleges of Human Medicine, Osteopathic Medicine, and Veter­ inary Medicine). The colleges called upon to name members shall - 30 - be responsible for their own elections according to patterns acceptable to their constituencies. "5.2.3.3.4. Four committees — the Committee on Academic Governance; the Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget; the Committee on Public Safety; and the Student Affairs Committee — are excluded from the purview of Sections 5.2.3.3 5.2.3.3.3. The membership of these committees is defined in Sections 5.4.10.1., 5.4.03.1., 5.4.11.1., and 5.4.08.1. respectively. "5.2.3.4. Graduate Students; The membership of graduate students on Council standing committees shall be as indicated in the sections governing membership for each of the standing committees. The Council of Graduate Students (COGS) shall be responsible for selecting these members." 5.2.3.5. "5.2.3.5. A new section to be substituted for Council Revision 5.2.2.2.5.: Student Members-at-Large: To ensure a systematic representation of the views of non-whites in the Council standing committees, two seats shall be reserved on each committee for members-at-large. - 31 - "5.2.3.5.1. At least one of these seats shallbe reserved for a non-white. "5.2.3.5.2. Members-at-large in the standing committees shall be appointed. "5.2.3.5.3. The appointments are to be made by the student members of the Academic Council (representatives and representativesat-large) acting in the role of a Student committee on Committees. The Student Committee on Committees shall elect its own chairman. The chairman must be a representative-at-large. The Committee shall invite recommenda­ tions from the council of Graduate Students (COGS) and from the offices of ASMSU especially established for the conduct of minority affairs. "5.2.3.5.4. In each committee the seats of membersat-large shall remain to be assigned, whether or not a non-white has been named to the committee independently under the rules set forth in Sections 5.2.3.3. - 5.2.3.4. "5.2.3.5.5. The Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget is excluded from the purview 5.2.3.6. "5.2.3.6. The Council's Revision 5.2.2.2.6., amended: If a student member of a Council standing Committee is unable to fill his office for a term or longer, a replacement shall be appointed to serve for the remainder of the academic year by the Student Committee on Committees (5.2.3.5.3.)." - 5.3.3. The Council's Revisions 5.2.3. - 5.3.3., in part renumbered: The chairman of each Council standing committee shall submit an annual written report to the Steering Committee by December 31. Summaries of these reports shall be distributed to the Academic Council, and through Council minutes to the entire voting faculty. Each chairman shall keep the Academic Council informed of the work of his committee by means of oral reports at the meetings of the Academic Council. "5.2.4.1. Elected members of the Council-standing committees shall report quarterly, either orally or in writing, to their respective College Advisory Councils concerning the work of their committees. With the exception of the University Curriculum Committee, whose chairman shall be named by the President, and the University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget, whose chairman shall be named as pro­ vided in Section 5.2.5.1., all Council standing committees shall elect a chairman annually in January from their own membership. - 33 - "5.2.5.1. The chairman of the University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget shall be chosen by the voting faculty of the University according to the pat­ tern provided in Section 4.5.1. for the election of the Steering Committee (except that the Elected Faculty Council, instead of the Academic Council, shall select two of the nominees and shall fill by appointment a vacancy occurring during a term of office). The chairman of this committee shall serve as a voting member of the committee in addi­ tion to his college's other representative. He shall be elected at the same time as the Steering Committee, shall take office on July 1, and shall be eligible for no more than two consecutive terms of two years each. The chairman of the University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget shall be a voting member of the Elected Faculty Council. "5.3. General Functions of Council Standing Committees "5.3.1. The Council standing committees shall represent their constituencies in the interest of the total University. "5.3.2. The Council standing committees shall advise the Academic Council and appropriate administrative officials on matters within the purview of the committees. - "5.3.3. 34 - In the performance of their various duties. Council stand­ ing committees must often seek the expertise and assistance of both individuals and administrative units within the University. Accordingly, these committees are both encour­ aged and authorized to call on such individuals and adminis­ trative units for advice and assistance, and individuals and administrative units are asked to render whatever services are reasonably requested." 5.4. - 5.4.12. "5.4. The Council revisions, together with the institution of a new standing committee in 5.4.12. [minority student representation has been changed from "one to three" (or "one to four") to "two student members-at-large" in each standing committee .j : Nature and Functions of the Several Council Standing Committees "5.4.01. University Curriculum Committee "5.4.01.1. The voting membership of the Curriculum Committee shall consist of its elected faculty members, six undergraduate students, one graduate student, and two student membersat-large. The Registrar and a representative of the Provost's Office shall serve ex officio without vote. Additional ex officio non­ voting members may be included at the dis­ cretion of the committee." 5.4.01.2. "5.4.01.2. The Council Revision 5.4.1.2., renumbered: College faculty representatives elected to the University Curriculum Committee shall - 35 - serve as non-voting ex officio members of their respective college curriculum committees. [For 5.4.1.3. and 5.4.1.4. read "5.4.01.3." and "5.4.01.4." respectively.} "5.4.02. University Educational Policies Committee "5.4.02.1. The voting membership of the Educational Policies Committee shall consist of its elected faculty members, six undergraduate students, three graduate students, and two student members-at-large. The Provost and/or his designate shall serve ex officio without vote. Additional ex officio non-voting mem­ bers may be included at the discretion of the committee." (For 5.4.2.2. and 5.4.2.3. read "5.4.02.2." and "5.4.02.3." respectively} (The whole of Section 5.4.3. (i.e., 5.4.3. - 5.4.3.3., the section on the University Faculty Affairs Committee in the present Bylaws) is to be deleted.} "5.4.03. University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Com­ pensation, and Academic Budget "5.4.03.1. The voting membership of the Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget shall consist of its elected faculty members. The Provost shall serve as an ex officio non-voting member. Additional - 36 - ex officio non-voting members and con­ sultants from the university may be included at the discretion of the committee." "5.4.04. university Faculty Tenure Committee "5.4.04.1. The voting membership of the Faculty Tenure Committee shall consist of its elected faculty members, three undergraduate students, one graduate student, and two student membersat-large. A representative of the Provost's Office shall serve ex officio without vote. ^For 5.4.4.2., 5.4.4.3., 5.4.4.4., 5.4.4.6., and 5.4.4.7. read "5.4.04.2.," "5.4.04.3.," "5.4.04.4.," "5.4.04.5.," and "5.4.04.6." respectively. Council Revision 5.4.4.5., concerning judicial (case appeal) functions, has been deleted^) ^Note that Council Revision 5.4.4.5. concerning the University Faculty Tenure Committee's report to the Academic Council on their determination with respect to the inclusion of students in the judicial (case appeal) function of the committee has been deleted^ "5.4.04.7. The rules laid down in Sections 2.5.3. 2.5.9.5. shall be understood to govern representation and voting at the university as well as at the departmental, school, institute and college level. "5.4.05. University Committee on Honors Programs "5.4.05.1. The voting membership of the Honors Programs Committee shall consist of its elected faculty members, six undergraduate students, one graduate student, and two student members- - 37 - at-large. Three of the undergraduates shall be members of the Honors College, chosen by the students of the college; the other under­ graduates shall not be members of the Honors College, but they must be or have been enrolled in Honors courses or programs. The graduate member shall have completed a baccalaureate degree in an Honors Program. The two members- at-large shall be members of the Honors College, or be or have been enrolled in Honors courses or programs, or have completed baccalaureate degrees in Honors programs. The Director of the Honors College shall serve as an ex officio non-voting member. Additional ex officio non­ voting members may be included at the discre­ tion of the committee." (For 5.4.5.2. and 5.4.5.3. read "5.4.05.2." and "5.4.05.3." re spec ti ve ly "5.4.06. University international Projects Committee "5.4.06.1. The voting membership of the International Projects Committee shall consist of its elected faculty members, three undergraduate students, two graduate students, and two student members-at-large. The Dean of International Programs shall serve as an ex officio non-voting member. Additional - 38 - ex officio non-voting members may be included at the discretion of the committee." (For 5.4.6.2., 5.4.6.3., and 5.4.6.4. read "5.4.06.2.," "5.4.06.3.," and "5.4.06.4." respectively.]] "5.4.07. University Library Committee "5.4.07.1. The voting membership of the Library Committee shall consist of its elected faculty members, three undergraduate students, two graduate students, and two student mem­ bers-at-large. The Director of Libraries shall serve ex officio without vote. Addi­ tional ex officio non-voting members may be included at the discretion of the committee." (For 5.4.7.2. and 5.4.7.3. read "5.4.07.2." and "5.4.07.3." respective ly.]) (Sections 5.4.8.1. and 5.4.8.3. of the present Bylaws have been expunged in order to make way for the following Council revisions!] "5.4.08. University Student Affairs Committee "5.4.08.1. The University Student Affairs Committee shall be composed of six faculty members to be selected on a rotating basis among the colleges of the University according to the procedures outlined in Section 6.1.4. of the Bylaws; five undergraduate students appointed by the Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU); four graduate students selected by the Council of Graduate Students (COGS), and two student members-at-large. - 39 - The Vice President for Student Affairs and the Dean of Students shall serve ex officio without vote. Additional ex officio non-voting members may be included at the discretion of the committee. "5.4.08.2. The Student Affairs Committee shall examine, study, and evaluate all policies of the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs as they affect academic achievement in the University and advise the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Dean of Students, and the Academic Council thereupon. "5.4.08.3. The Student Affairs Committee shall initiate amendments and review proposed amendments to (1) the Academic Freedom Report with the exception of Sections 2.1.4.9 and 2.2; (2) General Student Regulations; and (3) policies relating to the academic rights and responsibilities of students; provided, how­ ever, that any amendment affecting the pro­ fessional rights and responsibilities of the faculty (as the Elected Faculty Council inter­ prets these rights and responsibilities) must be approved by the Elected Faculty Council before consideration by the Academic Council. - 40 - The Council shall refuse to consider any amendment or revision of Sections 2.1.4.9 and 2.2 of the Academic Freedom Report until the proposed change has received the endorse­ ment of the University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic Budget and the approval of the Elected Faculty Council. "5.4.08.4. The Student Affairs Committee shall assume the duties of the Committee on Academic Rights and Responsibilities described in Section 2.3 of the Academic Freedom Report. "5.4.09. University Committee on Business Affairs "5.4.09.1. The voting membership of the Committee on Business Affairs shall consist of its elected faculty mem­ bers, three undergraduate students, two graduate students, and two student members-at-large. The Vice President for Business and Finance, together with two other persons from the business and service groups designated by the Vice President for Business and Finance, shall serve as ex officio non-voting members. Additional ex officio non­ voting members may be included at the discretion of the committee." [in 5.4.9.2. and 5.4.9.3. read "5.4.09.2." and "5.4.09.3." respectively!) - 41 - "5.4.10. University Committee on Academic Governance "5.4.10.1. The voting membership of the Committee on Academic Governance shall consist of one faculty member from each college, one faculty member representing the non-college faculty, one student member from each college (selected according to procedures established by the colleges), two student members-at-large, and one additional faculty member selected by the Committee on Committees so as to represent the lower faculty ranks. "5.4.10.2. The Committee on Academic Governance shall undertake a continuing review of the Bylaws of the Faculty with the responsibility for making recommendations to the Council for whatever changes in the Bylaws the Committee's investigations indicate. "5.4.10.3. Specifically, the Committee on Academic Governance shall conduct a continuing study of the steps being taken throughout the Uni­ versity to involve students in academic government in accordance with the procedures established by these Bylaws. "5.4.11. University Committee on Public Safety "5.4.11.1. The voting membership of the Committee on Public Safety shall consist of seven faculty - 42 members (two from the lower faculty ranks) to be selected on a rotating basis among the colleges of the university according to the procedures outlined in Section 6.1.4. of the Bylaws; four undergraduate students appointed by the Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU); one graduate student selected by the Council of Graduate Students (COGS); and two student members-at-large. The Director of the School of Criminal Justice and the Director of the Department of Public Safety shall serve as ex officio non-voting members. Other ex officio non-voting members may be included at the discretion of the Committee." "5.4.11.2. The Committee on Public Safety shall examine policies affecting the public safety of the University community. Specifically, the Committee on Public Safety shall study and evaluate public safety services, facilities, and policies, and shall advise the President, Provost, the Director of Public Safety, and the Academic Council thereupon. "5.4.11.3. The Committee on Public Safety shall hold regular, open meetings at which members of the academic community may bring to the - 43 attention of the committee issues affecting the public safety of the University. "5.4.11.4. The Committee on Public Safety shall place under continuous study current and projected needs of the University with respect to public safety, and recommend appropriate action. "5.4.12. university Committee on Building, Lands, and Planning "5.4.12.1. The voting membership of the Committee on Building, Lands, and Planning shall consist of its elected faculty members, three undergraduate students, one graduate student, and two student members-at-large. The Executive vice President, the Director of Campus Park and Planning, the Director of Space Utilization, and the Univer­ sity Architect shall serve ex officio without vote. Additional ex officio non-voting members may be added at the discretion of the committee. "5.4.12.2. The committee shall be charged with the follow­ ing specific responsibilities: "5.4.12.2.1. Studying and making recommendations with respect to building priorities on University property. "5.4.12.2.2. Studying and making recommendations with respect to proposals for land utilization on university property. - 44 - "5.4.12.2.3. Studying and making recommendations with respect to the ecological impli­ cations of land utilization and building proposals. "5.4.12.2.4. Studying and making recommendations with respect to traffic planning. "5.4.12.2.5. Studying and making recommendations on the appearance and location of buildings with respect to both functional and aesthetic criteria. "5.4.12.2.6. Advising the President of the university concerning the financing, location and appearance of physical facilities on University property, and informing the Academic Council of its recommendations. 6.2.1. -6.2.1.2. Delete these and renumber sections in the present Bylaws, Sections 6.2.2. - 6.2.2.2. as follows for 6.2.2. read 6.2.1. " 6 .2 .2 .1 . " 6 .2 .1 .1 . " 6 .2 .2 .2 . " 6 .2 .1 .2 . 6.2.3. -6.2.3.2. Delete these December 3, 1970 sections in the present Bylaws. APPENDIX D COVER LETTERS TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND INSTRUMENT 303 116 E ng ine e r i n g Bldg. M i c h i g a n State U ni v e r s i t y F eb ruary 15, 1971 For the past several years, the attention of m a n y of us in the M i c h i g a n State U n i ve rs it y community has been focused on the issue of increased student p a r tic ip at io n in u n i ve rs ity decis ion -m ak in g processes. Indeed, this has be en an issue receiving critical examination in in stitutions of higher education throughout the country. Because of the complex nat ur e of this and related questions, it is imperative that each institution devel op an aw areness of the opinions of its various constituents and seek solutions w h i c h w il l be in the best interests of everyone in the academic community. The pu r p o s e of this study is to survey the opinions of a randomly selected group of M S U faculty and academic admi ni str at or s r e g ard in g u n d e r ­ graduate student involvement in specified u n ive rs it y dec is i o n - m a k i n g matters. The results of this investigation w il l serve as the fou nd ati on for a Ph.D. di s s e r ta ti on in the de partment of A d mi ni st ra tio n in High er Education. The study has been endorsed by m y doctoral committee and approved through the Office of Institutional Research. As a fellow staff member, I ha ve delayed seeking your opinion in this m a tte r until n o w so as to avoid po ss ib le conflict w i t h your deliberations in the Ac ad em ic Council and Aca de mi c Senate. Specifically, you are requested to read carefully the d irections in each of the three sections of the instrument and respond to the statements in the appro pr iat e fashion. Be assured that y ou r opinions w il l b e treated in a confidential mann er and that your identity will remain completely anonymous. Respondents will not be grouped acc or din g to a ff iliation w i t h any specific univ er sit y department, college or intellectual discipline. The instrument is coded solely for research sampling and p os sible follow-up purposes. Your completing and re turning the instrument in the enclosed campus mail envelope by W e d n e s d a y , February 2 4 , 1 9 7 1 , will b e greatly appreciated. I wo u l d be hap py to forward to you a copy of the abstract of the completed study. Should y o u like such a copy, or should you w i s h to register additional opinions re garding this study or issue, p l ea se use the avai la bl e space on the back page to so indicate. Th a n k you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Yours truly, Brian R. Enos 304 116 E n g i n e e r i n g B u i l d i n g M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y M a r c h 1, 1971 Two w ee ks ago, I forwarded to you a copy of a q u e s t io nn air e designed to elicit some of your thoughts r e g a r d i n g u n d e r g r a d u a t e student i n v o l v e ­ m en t in specified u n iv er si ty d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g matters. As a participant, you are among a randomly selected group of M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y f a c ­ ul ty m em ber s and academic administrators. In order to d evelop a m o r e thorough un der st an di ng of the opi nions held by this segment of our c a m ­ pus population, I'm sure you can ap pr e c i a t e h o w important it is for each pa rticipant to complete and retur n the instrument as soon as possible. f As w as pointed out in m y p re v i o u s letter, this study has b e e n approved by the Office of Institutional R es e a r c h and w i l l serve as the found at io n for m y Ph.D. dissert ati on in the d ep a r t m e n t of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n in Higher E d u ­ cation. The opinions of individual r esp on d e n t s wi ll be treated in a c o n f i ­ dential manne r and re spondents w i l l not be identified or grouped ac cording to their affiliation w i t h any specific department, college, or intellectual discipline. In the event that you did not rec eive the original questionn ai re through some oversight on m y part, or it has b e e n m is placed, a d u p l ic at e copy is enclosed. I woul d be v e r y grateful if you could take fifteen or twenty m inut es to fill it out and return it to m e in the enclosed campus mail envelope w i t h i n ji w e e k . If you woul d like an abstra ct of the c o m ­ pleted study, or should you w i s h to reg is te r a dditional op inions r e g a rdi ng this study or issue, please us e the a v a i lab le space on the b a c k page to so indicate. Th an k you for your con si der at io n and c o o p e r a t i o n in this matter. Yours truly, Brian R. Enos 305 Section I Specific U n i v e r s i t y D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g M a t t e r s D i r e c t i o n s : Listed b e l o w are va r i o u s u n i v e r s i t y m a t t e r s w h i c h co mmo nl y require d ec is i o n - m a k i n g action. The four res p o n s e alterna ti ves r ep resent values r an gin g fr om 1 to 4 on a nu me ri ca l scale. P l e ase circle the numerical v a l u e of the respon se a lt ern a t i v e (i.e. 1, 2, 3 or 4) w h i c h m o s t closely repr es ent s y o u r personal o pi ni on r e g a r di ng the extent to w h i c h u n d e r g r a d u a t e students should b e involved in action taken on that pa rticular m a t t e r in formal d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g sessions (e.g. co mmittee or council me et i n g s at the departmental, college, or a ll- un iv e r s i t y level). The response al te rna ti ve s w i t h their nu merical val ue s are as follows: — = Strong I n v o l v e m e n t . . .At least a_s m a n y u n d e r g r a d u a t e students as f ac ulty involved in the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process, w i t h students h av i n g v o t i n g privileges. _2 = M o d e r a t e I n v o l v e m e n t ...Fewer n um be rs of u n d e r g r a d u a t e students than faculty involved in the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process, w i t h students havi ng v o t i n g privileges. _3 = Ad vi s o r y I n v o l v e m e n t ...Undergraduate students involved in the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p ro cess in a dv i s o r y capacities only, without vot i n g privileges. 4 = No I n v o l v e m e n t . . .Undergraduate students not involved in either ad vi s o r y or v o t i n g capacities in the d ec is i o n - m a k i n g process. 12 34 (1) P r o m o t i n g present faculty m e m b e r s 12 34 (2) D e v e l o p i n g objec tiv es of the u n i v e r s i t y 12 34 (3) A p p o i n t i n g the college dean 12 34 (4) E st a b l i s h i n g guidelines for a s s i g nin g credit hours courses to 12 34 (5) D ef in in g class att en da nce r e q u i rem en ts in specific courses 12 34 (6) Rat in g the teachi ng effe ct ive ne ss of individual me mb er s 12 34 (7) A p p o i n t i n g the de partment c ha irman 12 34 (8) D ef in in g grading criteria in specific courses 12 34 (9) E s t a b l i s h i n g guidelines 12 34 (10) De le t i n g courses from the c u rr ic ulu m 12 34 (11) E s t a b li sh in g g ui delines for ev aluation of teaching 12 34 (12) De te rm i n i n g the num ber of credit hours for specific courses 12 34 (13) E s t a b li sh in g guidelines on grading practices faculty for hir i n g faculty effectiveness 306 Num erical Values: _1 _2 _3 4 = = = = Strong Involvement M o d e r a t e Involvement A d v i s o r y Involvement No Involvement 12 3 4 (14) De ve l o p i n g unive rs it y p ol i c y for appoi nti ng colle ge deans 12 3 4 (15) E s t a bl is hin g guidelines for de le tin g courses f ro m curricula 12 3 4 (16) E s t a bl is hin g guidelines for appo in ti ng depar tme nt chairmen 12 3 4 (17) A d di ng new courses to the c u r ric ul um 12 3 4 (18) De velopment of un iv e r s i t y guidelines on e st a b l i s h i n g degree require me nt s 12 3 4 (19) D ef i n i n g objectives in specific courses 12 3 4 (20) E s t a b l is hi ng 12 3 4 (21) Determ in in g salaries of individual faculty m em be rs 12 3 4 (22) Dev e l o p i n g un iv e r s i t y p o lic y on adding courses to cu rricula 12 3 4 (23) A wa r d i n g tenure to individual 12 3 4 (24) Hir in g individual faculty m embe rs 12 3 4 (25) E s t a b lis hi ng guidelines for awarding faculty tenure 12 3 4 (26) D et er mi nin g course re quirements in specific degre e progr am s 12 3 4 (27) D e v el op in g a u n iv ers it y class attendance pol ic y 12 3 4 (28) D e v el op in g a u n i v e r s i t y p o li cy r eg arding faculty salaries Section II guidelines for pro moting present f ac ul ty faculty m em bers P er sonnel and Curr ic ul um Matters D i r e c t i o n s : Listed b e l o w are statements regarding faculty personnel or curriculu m-r el at ed m at ters in the u n i v er sit y setting. The terms " faculty p e r s o n n e l " or " p e r s o n n e l -r e l a t e d " refer exclus iv el y to ma t t e r s of faculty status in the un iv e r s i t y (e.g. hiring, dismissing, promoting, evaluating f a c u l t y ) . The terms " c u r r i c u l u m " or " c u r r i c u l u m -r e l a t e d " refer exclusi ve ly to matte rs concerning authorized u n i v e r s i t y courses and degree programs (e.g. credit hours, degree requirements, course objectives). The five response alternatives represent values ranging from 1 to 5 on a numerical scale. Please circle the n um erical va lu e of the response alte rn at ive (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) w h i c h most closely represents the extent to w h i c h you agree w i t h that partic ul ar statement. The response al ternatives w i t h their numerical values are as follows: 307 1_ = Strongly Agree w i t h the statement. 2_ = A g r e e w i t h the statement. _3 = Un decided as to w h e t h e r I agree or d is a g r e e w i t h the statement. 4 = Di sa gr ee w i t h the statement. _5 = Strongly Dis ag re e w i t h the statement. 12 3 45 (29) There are too m a n y u n d e r g r a d u a t e s w h o w o u l d try to impose their views, not simply express opinions, in curriculumrelated matters. 12 3 45 (30) Faculty re luctance to change is a ma j o r o bs tacle in curr ic ulu m innovation and reform. 12 3 45 (31) As memb er s of the academic community, u n d e r g r a d u a t e students should be afforded the right to b e involved in de ci si on -ma ki ng re ga rdi ng faculty pe rs on ne l matters. 12 3 45 (32) The u n d e r gr ad ua te student p o p u l a t i o n is too transient to be involved in faculty p e r s o n n e l - r e l a t e d decisions. 12 3 45 (33) Faculty m e mb er s must assume p r i m a r y dec is i o n - m a k i n g authority in cur ri cul um m a t t e r s or forfeit some basi c tenets of "academic freedom". 12 3 45 (34) Resp ons ib il it y for d ec isions in u n d e r g r a d u a t e cu rr i c u l u m ma tters can be shared by the students and faculty. 12 3 45 (35) The issue of u n d e r g r a d u a t e student rights should not be extended into the area of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g in curriculumrelated matters. 12 3 45 (36) Undergr ad uat e student involvement in m a k i n g personnelrelated decisions is not a threat to faculty "academic freedom". 12 3 45 (37) E xc lusive respo ns ib il ity for facu lt y pe rsonnel m a t te rs must be retained b y those most af fected b y such policies name ly the faculty. 12 3 45 (38) Faculty, not students, should be d e m a n d i n g mo re autonomy in curriculum-related decisions. 12 3 45 (39) Most u n de rgr ad ua te s seek only a voice, no t c on tr ol lin g influence, in faculty pe rs on nel - r e l a t e d matters. 1 2 3 4 5 (40) Under gra du at es tend to be too i de alistic in their expectations of courses to be involved in curriculumrelated d e cis io n- ma kin g matters. - 308 Nu me ri cal Values: 1_ = Strongly Agr ee Agree _3 = Un decided = Di sagree 5_ = Strongly D i s a g r e e 2= 12 3 45 (41) Conside ra ti on of students' percept io ns of their e d u c a ­ tional needs or goals is sufficient r e as on to include undergra du ate s in c u r r ic ul um -re la te d decisions. 12 3 45 (42) Though experts in specific academic disciplines, faculty m e mb er s are not always the best judges of effective teaching. 12 3 45 (43) The transient n a t u r e of the u n d e r g r a d u a t e p op u l a t i o n should not inhibit such students from c o n t r i bu ti ng to d is cussions of c u r r i c u l um- re la te d matters. 12 3 45 (44) Most u nde r g r a d u a t e students w o u l d prefer h a v in g curriculumrelated de cisions m a d e by faculty and administrators. 12 3 45 (45) U nd er g r a d u a t e students hav e a va lu abl e pe r s p e c t i v e on teaching effecti ve nes s w h i c h should be co nsidered in faculty personnel matters. 12 3 45 (46) Faculty a ut onomy in p e r s o n n e l -re la te d m a t t e r s often generates de ci si on s based up on vested interests. 12 3 45 (47) M o s t u nd er g r a d u a t e students are su fficiently interested in faculty personnel ma t t e r s to mer it b e i n g involved in such d e c i s i on -ma ki ng matters. 12 3 45 (48) Most u n d e rg ra du ate s are k no wl e d g e a b l e enough to u n d e rs ta nd issues re lating to cur r i c u l u m matters. 12 3 45 (49) Policies and pra ct ice s r eg arding faculty personnel m a t te rs are constantly b e i n g evaluated and m od ifi ed in light of new ideas and suggestions. 12 3 45 (50) De te rm i n i n g cu rr i c u l u m r equirements or changes is best left to the faculty wh o are experts in specific academic disciplines. 12 3 45 (51) Undergr ad ua te students need not be di re c t l y involved in discussions of faculty personnel issues to hav e their educational needs or goals adeq uat el y considered in d ec isions rega rd in g such matters. 12 3 45 (52) Issues relating to faculty personnel m a t t e r s are too complex to be ad eq u a t e l y un derstood b y most u n d e r g r a d u a t e students. 309 Section III Antici pa te d Results D i r e c t i o n s : A s s u m e that an ag reed-upon numb er of und erg ra du at es w e r e given v o t i n g p r iv il eg es on departmental, college, and all -un iv er si ty d e c i s i o n ­ m a k i n g bodie s conside ri ng faculty-personnel and c urr ic ulum-related m at te rs (as de fined in the p re vi ou s s e c t i o n ) . Listed be l o w are sta te ­ m e n t s intended to d es c r i b e p o s s i b l e conditions res ul ti ng from such u n d e r g r a d u a t e student involvement. The five response a lt ernatives represent valu es r a ngi ng from 1 to 5 on a numerical scale. Plea se circle the nu merical val ue of the response al ternative (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) w h i c h most closely represents the extent to whi c h you feel the con di ti on d escribed in the statement is likely to result from such u n d e r g r a d u a t e student involvement. The response alternatives w i t h their n um erical value s are as follows: 1_ = Very L i k e l y ... This condition is v e r y likely to result from such u n d e r g r a d u a t e student involvement. 2 = L i k e l y .. .This condition is likely to result from such un de rg r a d u a t e student involvement. 3 = U n d e c i d e d . . .U n c er ta in as to wh e t h e r this condition is likely or u n l i k e l y to result from such un de rg r a d u a t e student involvement. 4 = U n l i k e l y .. .This condition is u nl ik ely to result from such u n d e r g r a d u a t e student involvement. 5^ = Very U n l i k e l y . . .This co ndition is very un likely to result from such u n d e rg ra dua te student involvement. 12 34 5 (53) P ro spe ct iv e faculty me mbers wou ld b e less attracted to an institution w h e r e u n d e rgr ad ua te students w e r e allowed opportu ni ti es to influence their status (hire, fire, tenure, e t c . ). 12 34 5 (54) The p re sti ge of the faculty woul d be lowered. 12 34 5 (55) Greate r r ec ep tiv it y to change and innovation in such ma t t e r s wou ld result at the departmental level. 12 34 5 (56) Incidences of student d isturbances would be reduced. 12 34 5 (57) The formalized d e ci sio n- ma ki ng processes w o u l d become m o r e acce pta bl e to most u n d e rg rad ua te students. 12 34 5 (58) Facul ty me m b e r s wo ul d beco me more knowledg eab le about the needs and concerns of the student population. 12 34 5 (59) The bala nc e of power in decisi on -m ak ing bodies w ou l d be altered so that undergr ad uat e students would vir tua ll y control institutional affairs. 12 34 5 (60) Facult y m e m b e r s wo u l d tend to vote in a c ol lective block. 12 3 4 5 (61) Faculty m e mb er s wo u l d be ab dicating their re sp ons ibilities for d e c i s i on -m ak in g in u n ive rs it y affairs. 310 Nu merical Values: _1 = Very Likely 2 = Likely _3 = Undecided = Unlikely 5_ = Very Unlikely 12 3 45 (62) Facu lt y confidence in the judgement of un de rg r a d u a t e students w ou l d grow. 12 3 45 (63) The appeal of the v io le n t - p r o n e m i n o r i t y w o u l d be reduced among u n d e r gr adu at e students. 12 3 45 (64) Widespread cri tic is m wou l d be received from forces o u t ­ side the uni v e r s i t y (i.e. taxpayers, parents, legislators). 12 3 45 (65) Unde rgr ad ua te students wou ld develop an a p p r e c ia tio n for the complex n a tu re of de cis ion-making responsibilities. 12 3 45 (66) U n d e rg ra du ate students would gain v al ua b l e e xp erience wh i c h would enable them to assume m o r e respons ib le decisio n- ma ki ng roles in the university. 12 3 45 (67) There w ou ld be no safeguards against an irrespo nsi bl e m i n o r i t y of student radicals b ec oming spokesmen for the entire un de rgr ad ua te student population. 12 3 45 (68) U n d e rg rad ua te participants wo uld tend to vo te in a collective block. 12 3 45 (69) M o r e first-hand opportunities would be provided for faculty m embe rs to respond to student criticisms of their education. 12 3 45 (70) Valuable time would be spent ac quainting p a r t i c i p a t i n g students w i t h the issues, thus prolon gi ng decisions bei ng made. 12 3 45 (71) Those u n d e rg rad ua te students involved w ou l d be in danger of spending too m uc h time pa rt ic ipa ti ng in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g sessions and too little time in their academic endeavors. 12 3 45 (72) Feelings of dep ers on al iz ati on among u nd erg r a d u a t e wo ul d b e reduced. students 12 34 5 (73) M o r e decisions would b e m a d e outside the formal u n i v e r s i t y channels. 12 34 5 (74; M o r e accurate appraisal of the effectiveness of educational practices wou ld result. 12 34 5 (75) The role of the un i v e r s i t y would be in danger of ch an gin g from an institution of learning to an instrument for social or political change. 12 34 5 (76) Less confusion about u n i v e r s i t y functions and goals wo u l d result. 311 Num er ic al Values: JL = 2= _3 = = 5^ = Very Likely Likel y Und ecided Un li k e l y Very Unlik ely 12 3 45 (77) Most faculty w o u l d not have the time to be involved in such d ec is io n- mak in g processes. 12 3 45 (78) Greate r faculty attention w ou l d be focused u p o n the need for frequent evaluation of p ol ic ies and pr ac tic es in such matters. 12 3 45 (79) Un der g r a d u a t e c u rr ic ul um standards and requir em ent s w o u l d be lowered. 12 3 4 5 (80) D if fer en ce s of opinion b et we en u n d e r g r a d u a t e students and faculty wo u l d be discussed and p os si b l y reconciled. APPENDIX E TABLES OF SCHEFFE POST HOC COMPARISONS 312 Table 7.1 Selected Scheffe Post Hoc Comparisons of Faculty Status Group Meansa in All Variable Sets A Variable Set T Group Mean Contrasts F .05,2,126b V F 1 " f2 F1 " f 3 f2 " f 3 (Fi+F 2 ) - 2(F.) (Fj+F ) - 2(F2 ) (F 2+ F 3} - 2(Fx) .289 .289 .289 .500 .500 .500 .379* .438* .059 .497 .320 .827* F1 " f 3 F2 " f3 (f1+ f 2) - 2 (F3) (FX+F-) - 2(F~) (F 2+f 3 ) - 2(F1) .331 .331 .331 .573 .573 .573 .325 .389* .064 .453 .261 .714* F1 " F2 F1 " F 3 F2 - F (FX+ F 2 ) - 5 ( f 3) (F l+F 3 ) " 2 (F ?^ (f2+ f 3) - 2(F]_) .263 .263 .263 .455 .455 .455 .300* .456* .156 .612* .131 .756* F1 " II III F2 *Significant at .05 level. aF = Non-tenured faculty; F 2 = Tenured faculty; F 3 = Academic administrators. ^Conventional F value required for significance at .05 level. 313 Table 7.2 Selected Scheffe Post Hoc Comparisons of Within Group Means on Repeated Measures in All Variable Sets Variable Set Repeated Measures Contrasts R1 ' R2 R 3 '' R 4 ‘ r3 r2 '- r 4 (r x + r 2) -- (R3+ R 4 ) (r 1+r3 ) -- (R2+R 4 ) ' T ± 4 - R 5 *’ R7 -‘ II r6 R8 R 5 *- r 7 r6 " Rs (r 5+ r 6 ) '- (r7+ r 8) (r5+ r 7) -■ (r 6+ R 8 ) ' A j > ?.05,l,126a (.05,3,378)fc V .155 .155 .155 .155 .219 .219 (.126) (.126) (.126) (.126) (.178) (.178) .298* .211 * .435* .348* .783* .509* .213 .213 .213 .213 .245 .245 (.173) (.173) (.173) (.173) (.219) (.219) .403* .170 .163 .070 .093 .573* 1 F .05,1,126a (.05,2,252)b R 10 r r9 “ R11 9 IIII - 110 110 110 199 (.094) (.094) (.094) (.162) 014 354* 368* 722* *Significant at .05 level using both conservative and conventional F tests. Conservative F value required for significance at .05 level. ^Conventional F value required for significance at .05 level. APPENDIX F TABLES OF ITEM MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Table 7.3 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Total Sample and Faculty Status Groups on Items in Variable Set I Scale R1 (Specific Personnel Matters) r2 (General Personnel Matters) r3 (Specific Curriculum Matters) r4 (General Curriculum Matters) Item 7 3 24 1 23 21 6 16 14 9 20 25 28 11 17 10 19 12 26 8 5 22 15 2 4 18 13 27 p i, 2,3 (Total Sample) X S.D. 2.98 2.93 3.33 3. 07 3.25 3.67 2.06 2.70 2.83 2.93 2. 83 2.74 3.16 2.01 2.36 2. 51 2. 70 2. 70 2.74 2. 71 2. 53 2. 35 2.41 2. 24 2.48 2.59 2. 41 2.29 0. 71 0.74 0.68 0. 71 0.76 0.71 0.87 0 .80 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.85 0.92 0.73 0.76 0.85 0.86 0.92 0.81 1.00 1.06 0.79 0.82 0.74 0.90 0.86 0.93 0.90 F1 (Non-Tenured) X S.D. 2.76 2.76 3.05 2.76 2.84 3.33 1.82 2. 49 2.62 2.73 2. 51 2.51 2.80 1 .80 2.11 2.27 2.36 2. 51 2.31 2.36 2.38 2.11 2.18 1.94 2 .20 2.26 2. 09 2.07 0.77 0.77 0 .80 0.80 0.88 0.98 0.78 0 .82 0.86 0. 89 0.87 0.92 1.01 0.66 0.78 0. 89 0.98 1.04 0.87 1.15 1.13 0 .80 0 .83 0.65 0.92 0.88 0.95 0.94 F2 (Tenured) X S.D. 3.13 3.04 3.31 3.22 3. 38 3.76 2.44 2.84 2.84 2. 87 2.91 2.76 3.22 2. 27 2.42 2.60 2.87 2. 64 2.89 2.91 2.60 2. 36 2. 51 2.44 2.60 2.71 2.60 2.33 0.66 0.77 0.60 0.64 0.65 0.57 0.87 0.85 0.90 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.88 0.75 0.72 0.91 0.76 0.93 0.71 0.92 1.03 0.83 0. 87 0.76 0.94 0.87 1.03 1.00 F3 (Acad. Admin.) S.D. X 3.04 2.98 3.62 3.24 3.53 3.93 1.91 2.78 3.02 3.18 3.07 2.96 3.47 1.98 2.56 2.67 2.87 2.93 3.02 2.87 2.60 2.58 2.53 2.33 2.64 2.82 2.56 2.47 0.67 0.69 0.53 0.57 0.55 0.25 0. 85 0.70 0.72 0.75 0.65 0.77 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.66 0.81 1.03 0.69 0.73 0.71 0.80 0.72 0. 72 0.73 Table 7.4 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Total Sample and Faculty Status Groups on Items in Variable Set II Itema Scale r5 (Student Qualifica­ tions in Curriculum Matters) r7 (Faculty Roles in Personnel Matters) Ro (Faculty Roles in Curriculum Matters) 3. 59 3.28 2.16 3.18 2. 31 2.96 3. 39 3.15 2. 50 2. 52 2.10 2. 23 3.12 2. 50 3.04 2.42 2.65 3.16 2.93 2. 33 2.74 2.56 2. 69 3.13 0.91 1.01 0.88 1. 25 0.93 1.18 1.20 0.92 0.48 0.98 0.78 1 .02 1.09 1.11 1.23 1.08 1.04 0.97 1.09 1.04 1.09 0.97 1. 25 1.10 Fl (Non-Tenured) X S.D. 3.42 3.07 1.96 2. 71 2.24 2.67 2.96 2. 84 2.22 2.18 1.93 1.98 2. 87 2.16 2 .80 2.31 2.53 3.07 2.67 2.02 2.27 2.49 2.64 2.96 0.78 1.10 0.82 1.14 0.80 1.11 1.17 1.04 0 .88 0.89 0.54 0.78 1 .06 0.82 1.16 1.08 0.99 0. 89 1.02 0.78 0.91 0.69 1.17 1.11 R2 (Tenured) X S.D. 3.60 3.42 2.33 3.29 2.49 2.87 3.38 3.29 2.60 2.82 2.24 2.67 3.07 2.67 3.02 2.60 2.69 3.02 2.89 2.40 2.87 2.60 2.78 3.27 a # = statements interpreted as relatively unfavorable. 1.08 1.01 0.95 1.29 1.16 1.27 1.28 0.82 0.96 1.09 0.98 1.19 1.16 1.15 1.29 1.14 1.18 1.12 1.15 1.14 1.18 1.01 1.28 1.18 F3 (Acad. Admin.) X S.D. 3.76 3.36 2.20 3.53 2.20 3.33 3.84 3.31 2.69 2.56 2.14 2.33 3.42 2.69 3.31 2.36 2.73 3.40 3.24 2.58 2.78 2.60 2.64 3.18 0. 83 0.91 0.84 1.20 0.76 1.09 0.98 0 .82 1.04 0. 84 0.73 0.95 1.01 1.24 1.20 1.03 0.94 0 .86 1.05 1.10 1.08 1.16 1.33 1.03 315 (Student Qualifica­ tions in Personnel Matters) ru 6 47 51# 45 32# 39 52# 31 44# 41 40# 43 29# 48 35# 37# 42 46 49# 36 34 50# 38# 30 33# F 1 /2,3 (Total Sample) X S.D. Table 7.5 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Total Sample and Faculty Status Groups on Items in Variable Set III Item Scale R qy (Effects Upon Students) R in 10 (Effects Upon Faculty) R 11 (Effects Upon University) a 72 63 66 57 65 71# 59# 67# 68# 58 69 62 78 54# 61# 60# 53# 77# 80 56 74 55 76 70# 79# 73# 75# 64# F l, 2,3 (Total Sample) X S.D. 2.93 3.01 2.52 2.76 2.21 3.14 2.10 2. 84 2.52 2.36 2.40 2.81 2.55 2.73 2.45 2. 35 3.39 2.87 2. 56 3.23 2.96 2.68 3.27 3. 63 2.60 3.10 2.99 3. 23 0.96 1.09 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.06 0.82 1.14 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.92 0.94 1.12 1. 05 0.96 1.09 1.03 0.91 0.99 0.96 1.01 1.00 0.99 1.01 0.94 1.00 1.06 F1 (Non-Tenured) X S.D. 2.69 2.80 2.16 2.62 2.00 2.82 1.84 2.49 2.42 2.24 2.11 2.49 2.33 2.38 2.07 2. 24 3.16 2.53 2.31 3.00 2.58 2.40 3.09 3.47 2.38 2.82 2.69 3.00 0.95 1.08 0.82 0.86 0.85 1.03 0.73 0.97 0.87 0.88 0.68 0.76 0.85 0.86 0.75 0.88 0.98 0.94 0.90 1.04 0.87 0.96 1.02 0.97 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.93 *2 (Tenured) S.D. X 2.82 3.20 2.67 2.84 2.40 3.04 2. 24 3. 00 2.53 2.40 2.44 2.87 2.69 2.80 2.49 2.31 3.33 3.02 2.62 3.24 2.98 2.71 3.16 3.42 2.68 3.40 2.96 3.27 a # = statements interpreted as relatively unfavorable. 0.89 1.12 1.00 1.07 0.94 1.00 0.77 1.07 0.87 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.14 0.99 0.97 1.11 1.01 0.86 0.96 1.01 0.89 1.02 0.94 0.98 0.91 0.98 1.18 F3 (Acad. Admin.) X S.D. 3.29 3.04 2.73 2.80 2.22 3.56 2.22 3.02 2 .60 2.44 2.64 3.09 2.62 3.00 2.80 2.49 3.67 3.07 2.76 3.44 3.31 2.93 3.56 4.00 2.80 3.07 3.33 3.43 0.96 1.04 0.99 1.08 0.88 1.03 0.90 1.31 1.16 1.01 1.03 0.90 0.94 1.24 1.24 1.04 1.15 1.07 0.93 0.94 0.87 1.12 0.92 0.98 1.16 0.99 1.07 1.05