IN FO R M A TIO N TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected th a t the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE received. N O TE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University M icrofilm s 300 North Z oeb Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 I I 74-13,971 SHIPLEY, Thomas Beecher, Jr., 1944A SURVEY OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE 1972-73 MEMBERS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ONE YEAR OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973 Education, higher U n iv e rs ity M icro film s, A XEROX C om pany , A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig a n A SURVEY OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE 1972-73 MEMBERS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ONE YEAR OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE By Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. 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 1973 ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE 1972-73 MEMBERS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ONE YEAR OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE By Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. In recent years much has been spoken and written about student participation in the academic governance of American institutions of higher education. Much of this dialogue has focused on the broad question of whether or not students should or should not be granted the authority to be directly involved in the shaping of the educational environments of their colleges and univer­ sities. But there has been relatively little literature appearing that deals with specific programs designed to actually incorporate students into the decision-making process. This investigation was designed to assess the attitudes of the Michigan State University Academic Council with respect to the first year of actual student participation on this body— the primary academic decision­ making forum of that large public university. The 134- administrators, faculty members, and students, who are members of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council and who com­ prise the population under investigation, were asked to Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. communicate their feelings regarding the impact of Acade­ mic Council student participation in the followings areas: Academic freedom; whether or not student participa­ tion detracts from or strengthens an atmosphere in which the scholarly pursuit of truth can take place. Administrative efficiency; whether or not the invol­ vement of students has made an impact on the gover­ nance process and whether or not the positive aspects of Academic Council student participation outweigh the negative aspects, such as increased time needed to reach decisions, student inexperience, transience, and other factors. Community cohesion; whether or not the sharing of authority with students contributes to greater communication, cooperation, understanding, and improved interpersonal relationships among the students, faculty, and administrative personnel. Educational value; to what degree student partici­ pation provides valuable new educational opportun­ ities for those students involved in the academic governance process. A 99 item questionnaire, which included the pro­ ceeding four scales, was designed to elicit responses from each of the members of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council on each of these four topics. based upon their experiences with student participation at the Academic Council level. In addition, a series of follow-up inter­ views were conducted with a random sample of non-respon­ ding Council members. These interviews produced additional descriptive information, as well as data for testing the representativeness of questionnaire respondents to the entire Academic Council. More than 69 percent of the Academic Council members eventually responded to the instrument and their representativeness to the entire Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. Council was verified by the interviews. The 12 inter­ viewees were each asked to respond to 20 questionnaire items, selected from each of the four scales. The one­ way analysis of variance test for equality of population means indicated that at the .03 level, there was no difference between the questionnaire respondents and non­ respondents. In addition to the descriptive treatment of the data, the various component groups were compared using the one­ way analysis of variance test for equality of population means. Scheffe' post hoc comparisons were used to con­ trast significantly different group mean scores. General findings of this study included the following 1. The 1972-73 MSU Academic Council perceives its student members as not acting in ways detrimental to the concept of academic freedom. The Council has not felt that Academic Council student participation, within the parameters established by the "Taylor Report", has threat­ ened the climate of academic freedom at Michigan State University. The attitudes of the Academic Council, with regard to the proper student role in academic governance, appears to conform closely to the limitations set by the "Taylor Report". As might be expected, the responses of the student members of the Academic Council tended to advocate a much broader role in academic governance than did the faculty Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. or administrators, however, even they tended to feel that voting student authority was inappropriate in matters of primarily faculty concern. The social science faculty representatives were found to he significantly less pessimistic than either the liberal arts faculty repre­ sentatives or the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives with respect to the adverse effects of Academic Council student partici­ pation on academic freedom at Michigan State University. 2. The majority of the Academic Council was found to be in general agreement that its student members are capable of making important, responsible contributions, despite the complexity of governance. Most of the adminis­ trators, faculty, as well as the student Academic Council members, view student representatives as contributing to the efficiency of governance by supplying new insights and information. However, the Council continued to re­ affirm its present proportion of students to non-students by responding that an increase in student involvement would not contribute additional valuable input. The Academic Council tended to agree that the student repre­ sentatives are not immediately prepared to make major contributions and that some type of orientation or support system is needed to maximize student contributions. Strong disapproval was expressed concerning the granting Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. of salaries or academic credit to student members of the Academic Council. The only statistically significant difference detected among the various Academic Council component groups on the Administrative Efficiency scale took place between the liberal arts and social, science faculty respresentatives. The social science faculty group responded signi­ ficantly more positively with respect to the relation­ ship between Academic Council student participation and administrative efficiency. The largest differences between these groups occurred on statements such as the following: the complexity of academic governance precludes meaningful student contributions; the student representatives gener­ ally decide their stand on a given issue on the basis of the evidence rather than on the opinions of influential non-students; and students conscientiously prepare for Academic Council business. In each case, the social science faculty responded much more favorably toward Academic Council student participation than did the liberal arts faculty. 3- The responses of the Council to the individual items of the Community Cohesion scale provide evidence that Academic Council student participation has generally resulted in improvements in intergroup and interpersonal relationships, understanding, and in lines of communication among the administrative, faculty, and student Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. i representatives. While this development indicates that progress has been made in this area, no such development appears to have taken place beyond the Council. The limitations on student authority established in the "Taylor Report" appear to have resulted in some degree of dissatisfaction among the student members. The differences detected on the Community Cohesion scale were found to lie among those Academic Council com­ ponent groups classified according to academic affiliation rather than among the groups classified according to academic status. The faculty representatives affiliated with the social sciences were found to be more favorably impressed than their liberal arts counterparts, as well as the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives, with respect to the relationship between Academic Council student participation and community cohesion. In addition, significant differences were detected among the affiliated groups, i.e., groups composed of students, faculty, and administrators in each of the broad academic areas. The Council members affiliated with the social sciences viewed Academic Council student participation as significantly more conducive to closer community cohesion than did either the liberal arts affiliates or the combined group of liberal arts and natural science affiliates. Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. 4. The Academic Council tended to view student participation at this level or governance as a means of developing student maturity and responsibility through the sharing of authority with faculty and administrators. They also perceived the student representatives as willing, ready, and interested in pursuing these opportunities despite drawbacks such as the long separation in time between decisions and consequences, and the massive bureau­ cratic Council machinery. A significant difference was detected among the administrative, faculty, and student members of the Acade­ mic Council with respect to the student Academic Council experience as an important source of educational exper­ iences. The administrative and faculty representatives were more likely to disagree with statements of this type. } BIOGRAPHICAL DATA Name: Thomas B. Shipley, Jr. Date of Birth: July 11, 194A Marital Status: Married to Helen W. Children: Two girls, Kristen and Barbara Education: Mount Union College, Alliance, Ohio B.S., Chemistry, 1966 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., M.A., Student Personnel Adminis­ tration, 1967 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., Ph.D., Administration and Higher Education, 1975 Professional Experience: University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, 1967-1970, Counselor and Manager of Athletics Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., 1970-1972, Graduate Assistant, Office of the Dean of Students ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses his sincere appreciation to the many individuals on the Michigan State University campus whose advice, support, encouragement, and special competencies have heen instrumental in the completion of this investigation. Special thanks go out to Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald, chairman of my doctoral committee, the staff of the Office of Research Consultation, the members of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council, and those individuals who advised me concerning technical and subtle aspects of this study. Above all, deepest gratitude is expressed to my wonderful wife, Helen, whose support and assistance have been invaluable during the past three years, particularly during the more difficult times that occasionally arose during my doctoral program. iii TABLE OP CONTENTS Chapter Page LIST OP T A B L E S .............................. I. II. III. vi THE P R O B L E M ............................ 1 Introduction • • • • • ................ Historical Considerations .......... The Current State of Student P a r t i c i p a t i o n .................... Student Participation at Michigan State University.................. Purpose . . . . . . .................. I n s trumentation...................... Procedure and Design .......... Need and Significance of the Study . . . Limitations of the S t u d y .............. Definition of T e r m s .................. Ov e r v i e w .............................. 1 5 7 9 12 15 16 18 19 21 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: STUDENT PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . ........ 25 6 Introduction................ Present Problems Facing Contemporary American Higher Education . . . . . . Academic Freedom .................. Administrative E f f i c i e n c y ............ Community Cohesion.................... Educational V a l u e .................... S u m m a r y .......... 2429 57 4-9 37 64 A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF STUDENT PARTICI­ PATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE AT MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y ............ 66 Introduction ........................ "The Academic Freedom Report” . . . . . "The Massey Report" ................ "The McKee Report" .................. "The Taylor R e p o r t " .................. 66 67 71 82 94- iv 25 Chapter IV. Page ANALYSIS OF D A T A ..................... Ill Introduction....................... Ill Collection of D a t a ................. Ill Academic Freedom Scale Inter-Group Comparisons.........123 Discussion of Individual Items . . • Administrative Efficiency Scale . . . . Inter-Group Comparisons ............ Discussion of Individual Items . . . Community Cohesion Scale .............. Inter-Group Comparisons.........192 Discussion of Individual Items . . . Educational Value Scale . . . . . . . . Inter-Group Comparisons ............ Discussion of Individual Items . . . Discussion of the General Items . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 122 133 168 169 179 191 202 229 229 237 247 253 Introduction....................... 253 S u m m a r y ........................... 253 Academic Freedom ..................... 253 Administrative Efficiency. . . . . . 259 Community Cohesion ................... 262 Educational Value ................... 264 General Items .................. 266 C o n c l u s i o n s ........................ .. 267 Academic Freedom ..................... 267 Administrative E f f i c i e n c y ...... 271 Community Cohesion * = ~ - = s = = S s 273 Educational Value ................... 276 Discussion 277 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ................... 285 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................. 290 APPENDIX A ..................................... 305 APPENDIX B ..................................... 306 APPENDIX C ..................................... 307 APPENDIX D ..................................... 316 APPENDIX E ..................................... 328 APPENDIX F ..................................... 347 v LIST OP TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 Page Academic Affiliation of the 1972-73 Members of the Michigan State University Academic Council ................ 114 Academic Status of the 1972-73 Members of the Michigan State University Academic C o u n c i l ..................................... 114 Observed Cell Means for the Three Waves of Respondents on the Four S c a l e s ............ 116 Observed Cell Standard Deviations for the Three Waves of Respondents on the Four S c a l e s ................................... ANOVA Comparison of Populations for the Three Waves of Respondents on the Four S c a l e s .................................... 116 117 6 Academic Affiliation of the Responding Members of the 1972-73 Academic Council of Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ...... 118 7 Academic Status of the Responding Members of the 1972-73 Michigan State University Academic Council ......................... 119 Hoyt's Reliability Estimates for the Student, Faculty, and Administrative Components of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council on Each of the Four Scales. . . . 121 8 9 10 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Academic Freedom S c a l e ............................... 124 ANOVA Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Academic Freedom Scale. vi 124 Page Table 11 Scheffe' Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Adminis­ trators, Faculty, and Students on the Academic Freedom Scale ................ • 125 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Academic Freedom Scale • . 126 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate Students, and Graduate Students on the Academic Freedom Scale ............................. 126 14- Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Long and Short-Term Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale . . • 128 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 ANOVA Comparison of Long and Short-Term Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale . • . 128 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Academic Freedom Scale ................... 129 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Affili­ ates, Natural Science Affiliates, NonAffiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Academic Freedom Scale. .......... 129 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, NonAffiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Academic Freedom Scale . . • • • . • • ............ 130 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Adminis­ trators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Academic Freedom Scale ............................. 130 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Academic Freedom S c a l e ........ ........................ .. 131 vii Table 21 22 23 24- 25 26 27 28 29 30 Page ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale . . . 131 Scheffe* Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale 135 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Students, Nat­ ural Science Students, and Social Science Students on theAcademic Freedom Scale • . 133 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Academic Freedom Scale 134- Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Administrators, Faculty, and Students of the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ......................... 169 ANOVA Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Administrative Effici­ ency S c a l e ............................... 170 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ......... 171 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e .......... 171 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Long-Term and Short-Term Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ..................................... 172 ANOVA Comparison of Long-Term Faculty and Short-Term Faculty on the Adminis­ trative Efficiency Scale 172 viii (Table 31 32 33 34- 35 36 37 38 39 Page Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ..................................... 173 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ......................... 173 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affili­ ated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ...................... 174- ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Adminis­ trators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Administra­ tive Efficiency S c a l e .................... 174- Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Faculty, Nat­ ural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ..................................... 175 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency Scale - o 175 Scheffe* Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Wean Differences Among Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Administra­ tive Efficiency S c a l e ..................... 177 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Students, Nat­ ural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Administrative Efficiency S c a l e ............ I78 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Administrative Efficiency Scale ......................... 178 ix Page Table 40 41 42 43 44 43 46 47 48 49 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations Tor Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Community Cohesion S c a l e .......... 192 ANOVA Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Community Cohesion S c a l e .................... ................ 193 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Affiliates, Nat­ ural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Community Cohesion S c a l e ........................... 193 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Affili­ ates, Natural Science Affiliates, NonAffiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Community Cohesion S c a l e .......... 194 Scheffe' Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affili­ ates on the Community Cohesion Scale . . . 195 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Long-Term and Short-Term Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale • • 196 ANOVA Comparison of Long-Term Faculty and Short-Term Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale 197 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Community Cohesion Scale . 197 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Community Cohesion Scale ................ 198 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, NonAffiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Community Cohesion Scale ........................... 198 x Page Table 50 51 52 53 54- 55 56 57 58 59 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Adminis­ trators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Community Cohesion Scale ............................. 199 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Faculty, Nat­ ural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale . • 199 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale . • 200 Scheffe* Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean differences Among Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale . . . . . ................. • 201 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Students, Nat­ ural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Community Cohesion Scale . . 202 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Community Cohesion Scale .......... .. 202 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Educational Value S c a l e ............................. .. 229 ANOVA Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Educational Value Scale. 230 Scheffe* Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Adminis­ trators, Faculty, and Students on the Educational Value . . . . . . . .......... 231 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Long-Term and Short-Term Faculty on the Educational Value Scale . . . 232 xi Table 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Page ANOVA Comparison of Long-Term and ShortTerm Facility on the Educational Value S c a l e ....................................... 232 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Educational Value Scale . • 233 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Educational Value Scale • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 233 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, NonAffiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Educational .......... Value Scale 234 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Adminis­ trators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Educational Value S c a l e ............................... 234 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Educational Value Scale ....................... 233 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Educational Value S c a l e ............................ 236 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Educational Value S c a l e ..................................... 236 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Educational Value S c a l e ..................................... 237 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction In recent years, the trend toward greater participa­ tion by students in academic governance has become an important issue at Michigan State University (111:1) as well as at many institutions of American higher education- (185) Although the phenomenon of student involvement in academic governance dates back to the thirteenth century, the current movement has ^ust fairly recently commanded attention and incited controversy among educators. (105) The heart of the controversy lies in what, if any, role that undergraduates should play in making decisions on academic matters that previously had been the exclusive responsibility of administrators and facility members. (106) This trend toward greater student involvement in academic governance is often discussed in the context of the violent expressions of discontent by American college students, particularly during the middle and late 1960's. The delegation of decision-making authority to students j 2 has often "been suggested as a means hy which tensions could he reduced and confrontations minimized, (6, 35* 58) Many have described the current atmosphere of American higher education as characterized by greatly increased student attention toward the internal condi­ tions of the college or university. Administrators of contemporary American higher education are being challenged by students as never before to defend institutional pos­ tures on controversial issues. It is not uncommon to hear college and university undergraduates demand greater opportunities to participate in the formulation of univer­ sity decisions which affect their lives. (58, 74-* 106) Those aspects of concern to students go beyond the more traditional student concerns to encompass such matters as establishing institutional priorities, curriculum and personnel matters, course and instructor evaluation, admissions policies, and degree requirements. (105:16) A wide variety of reasons have been offered as contributing causes for these changes in student attitudes and behaviors. They include, among others, the impersonal atmosphere prevalent in the large universities, heightened interest and awareness of world and domestic inequities, and unparalleled affluence. Along with student restlessness came an increased desire to express a meaningful voice in the management of American colleges and universities. (82:61) When questioned regarding their position on greater student involvement in institutional governance, the responses from educators range from enthusiastically positive and encouraging (6, 8, 58, 74-, 106) to appre­ hensive and adamantly negative. (17* 59, 78, 105) Student participation in academic governance is viewed by some as a power motivated tactic directed against the academic freedom of the faculty. Others view students as justified in seeking access to fuller participation in the community of scholars, wishing only to improve decision-making, not control it. (54-:2) Historical Considerations A review of the history of higher education in the western world reveals that certain periods in the past have been characterized by strong student control and influence over the governance of higher education, both directly (82:50) and indirectly. (106:19-21) At various stages in the evolution of higher education, control at one time or another has been held by students, by faculty, and by laymen with little appreciable difference in results. (106:9-10, 16) The students at the University of Bologna in the twelfth century joined together to form a strong union that held the power to employ professors. But, as Benezet adds, they did so to improve procedures rather than to determine what was to be taught. (11:16) In the early American colleges, the students, who were considerably younger than more recent student generations, were clearly subordinated to the power of paternalistic faculty members and administrators whose role was one of molding and disciplining the students into mature adults* (106:17) From the establishing of Harvard in the seventeenth century until the last decade, with only the most atypical exception, the influence of students has been limited to indirect action. (106:16-17) This indirect action, how­ ever, has often been of greater significance than gener­ ally recognized. For example, the student in his role as a consumer, has the power of forcing departments which have become underenrolled to reassess the type of course offerings available. The increasing tendency of students to work harder and take more advanced courses in high school has had an important influence on the development of new college and university academic programs. (137*35) In the absence of recognized authority, students have exerted remarkable leadership over the academic climate of American higher education. Frederick Rudolph, in supporting his contention that "...unquestionably the most creative and imaginative force in the shaping of the American college and university has been the students," contends that: 5 "A glance back across American academic history suggests that students knew how to use a college as an instrument of their maturation. The univer­ sity has become a less wieldy instrument for that purpose, often a most disappointing instrument. Students have always had to insist that they are human beings. In the old days when their insis­ tence took the form of a most intricate extracurriculum or of a rebellion against some especially stringent application of the official code of dis­ cipline, they were encouraged either by a benevo­ lent neglect or by some common-sense president or professor. Today, neglect takes on new form: neglect has become a function of size and of a shift in professorial commitment rather than that of administrative absentmindedness or blindness." (159:4-7. 57) Walter Adams writes that as long as universities were still small, intimate communities where the under­ graduate was the focus of much attention and affection, students exercised a form of de facto influence on decisions. Together with their professors and adminis­ trators, they were part of an organic, close knit system sensitive to their views. While they lacked the formal authority to participate in formal decision-making, they possessed considerable informal influence over the quality of life and education within the institution. As the universities increased greatly in size and complexity, the faculty tended to allign themselves more with their intellectual discipline than with their institution. This trend was paralleled by the professionalization of administrators and the shifting of priorities to research and graduate education. These factors, which have been characteristic of most of the large universities since World War II, tended to diminish the de facto power of students. (6:111) Even a passing glance at the history of higher education reveals that students have influenced the development of American colleges and universities to a considerable degree. The Current State of Student Participation Although several institutions have a long history of successful student participation in governance, Lionn concluded in 1957 that with a few notable exceptions, formal student representation on faculty committees dealing with curriculum and personnel matters is rare. (98:35) Recent surveys indicate, however, that there is indeed a strong trend toward granting students high degrees of responsibility in the policy-making of American colleges and universities. In the fall of 1969* McGrath found that 88.3 percent of the 875 institutions supplying usable information had incorporated students into at least one institutional decision-making body. McGrath concluded that, "It is therefore, the atypical institution which has not moved in this direction, and such institutions are now for the most part actively considering doing so." (106:38) Cited in the Chronicle of Higher Education is a study conducted by the National Association of State Univer­ sities and Land Grant Colleges completed in 1970. Between one-third and one-half of the 90 responding institutions had incorporated students in search committees for high administrative officers, and long-range planning, evalua­ tion, or self-study committees, Twenty-five of these institutions had students on faculty or university councils, and nine had formal student representation at the governing board level. (147:1) In a follow-up study of his 1969 research, McGrath was able to conclude that in 1 9 7 1 » most administrators at institutions where students had participated on academic decision-making bodies were favorably impressed with the contributions students had made or could make to academic discussions, (107 :10 ) The Higher Education Panel of the American Council on Education found through a survey of 430 representative colleges and universities that while only 14 percent of the institutions have students on their governing boards, almost one-fourth (24 .7 percent) of the public four year institutions did, (1 3 ) Student Participation at Michigan &tate University A brief historical overview of student involvement at Michigan State University reveals that much effort has been put forth to operationalize an effective scheme for formalizing the student role in academic governance. The first attempt at defining this role was a document entitled the Ad Hoc Committee Report on Student Participa­ tion in Academic Government (Appendix D). In October, 1969* however, the Academic Council of Michigan State University, voted to recommit this report for further consideration. Shortly thereafter, a new student-facuity committee was appointed to conduct further discussions on the issue. This group began its work with the under­ standing that the Academic Council generally supported the concept of student involvement in the academic decision-making processes of the University. The resul­ ting Report of the New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government (Appendix E) was approved by the Academic Council, but the necessary faculty Bylaw ammendments were rejected by the Academic Senate in June, 1970, on the grounds that "ambiguities", "contradictions", and "some questionable provisions" required further clarifi­ cation and consideration. (54-: 12) A third report, Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Government (Appendix F) was passed by the Academic Council and the Academic Senate, and after considerable debate, accepted by the Board of Trustees on May 19, 1971* The provisions of this report pertaining to the Academic Council called for the seating of one undergraduate student representative from each of the colleges, plus six graduate student representatives. In addition, ten at-large seats on the Academic Council were created to ensure representation of the views of non-whites and women. (54-: 12-13) This document was widely criticized by the student leaders and the student press because it specifically excluded students from participation in certain matters relating to the professional rights and responsibilities of the faculty. Regardless of the criticisms, the passage of this document signified a new era of formal participa­ tion by M3U students in academic governance. (54-: 15) Purpose The fundamental purpose of this study is to survey the attitudes of those directly involved in the one year old Michigan State University experiment for involving students in the institutional decision-making structure at the Academic Council level. Students, faculty members, and administrators, who were members of the MSU Academic Council for at least two academic terms between January 1, 1972, and January 1, 1973» comprise the population to be studied. An extensive questionnaire (Appendix C) has been constructed on the basis of four functionally identified issues that persistently appear in the literature of student participation in institutional governance. These four controversial issues include the following: 1. Academic Freedom: whether or not student par­ ticipation detracts from or strengthens an atmosphere in which the scholarly pursuit of truth can take place. 10 2. Administrative efficiency: whether or not the involvement of students has made an Impact on the governance process and whether or not the positive aspects of Academic Council student participation outweigh the negative aspects such as increased time needed to reach decisions, student inexperience, transience, and other factors. 3. Community acceptance and cohesion: whether or not the sharing of authority with students con­ tributes to greater communication, cooperation, understanding, and improved interpersonal rela­ tionships among students, faculty, and adminis­ trative personnel. 4. Educational value: to what degree student part­ icipation provides valuable new educational opportunities for those students involved in the academic governance process. The questionnaire was designed to elicit responses from all of the members of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council on each of these four issues in relation to their experiences with student participation at the Academic Council level. In addition, a series of follow-up inter­ views were conducted with a random sample of non-respon­ ding Council members. The interview procedure produced additional descriptive information as well as data for testing the representativeness of the questionnaire respondents to the entire Academic Council. Potential interviewees were classified according to their academic status (administrators, faculty, and students) and were chosen randomly. The results of the questionnaire and the subsequent interviews have been treated as an indica­ tion of the attitudes of the 1972-73 Academic Council with respect to the following questions: 11 1. Has student participation at the Academic Council level affected academic freedom at Michigan State University? 2. Has the addition of voting student members made the Academic Council a more efficient academic decision-making body? 3. Has student participation at the Academic Council level contributed to improved cooperation and communication in the university community? 4. Has student participation provided new and sig­ nificant educational opportunities for the student members of the Academic Council? In addition, comparisons of response are to be made among the various subgroups that compose the Academic Council. These comparisons should provide insight into the following questions: 1. What, if any, attitudinal differences exist among students, faculty, and administrators who are members of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council? 2. What, if any, attitudinal differences exist between long term (more than two consecutive years of service) faculty Academic Council members and short term faculty Academic Council members? 3. What, if any, attitudinal differences exist among the student members of the 1972-73 Academic Coun­ cil who major in the general areas of liberal arts, natural science, and social and behavioral science? 4. What, if any, attitudinal differences exist among the faculty members of the 1972-73 Academic Coun­ cil members who are affiliated with the general academic areas of liberal arts, natural science, and social and behavioral science? 5- What, if any, attitudinal differences exist among the academic administrators who are members of the 1972-73 Academic Council and are affiliated with the general academic areas of liberal arts, natural science, and social and behavioral science, and those who are not affiliated to an academic discipline? 12 6. What, if any, attitudinal differences exist between graduate and undergraduate student members of the 1972-73 Academic Council? The results of these comparisons were essential to the analysis of the overall results. Differences in perspective were found and isolated in certain particular subgroups and, hypotheses concerning the source of various strengths and weaknesses of the present structure were formulated. In other areas the data from the questionnaire indicated significant similarities among the views of council members. Instrumentation The development of the instrument which was used in this study took place over a period of four months. Most of the items originated from the literature of student participation and related research. In addition, several suggestions from faculty, students, and administrators at MSU, as well as other institutions of higher education, were developed into items. Following the accumulation of several hundred items, the instrument was refined by eliminating or replacing the repititious and ambiguous statements. The face validity of the questionnaire was further enhanced with the assistance of three past members of the Michigan State University Academic Council who reviewed and criticized the questionnaire. The comments and suggestions from these men sire considered extremely valuable since they had been members of the Academic 13 Council during the difficult times when the specific details of the MSU experiment in student participation were "being decided. The questionnaire consists of 99 Likert style forced choice items (Appendix C). It was decided that the response options be limited to a four point scale that forces the respondent to take a position on each item. The elimination of an "uncertain" response commits the respondent to a stand on each item, thus providing the maximum amount of data. This course of action was taken because it was felt that the exper­ iences from a full year of student participation have enabled the Council members to make judgements on the great majority of the items. The final draft of the questionnaire contains a total of 99 items distributed among the issues as follows. ACADEMIC FREEDOM - 25 items. ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY - 22 items. COMMUNITY COHESION - 19 items. EDUCATIONAL VALUE - 10 items. GENERAL — 25 items. Procedure and Design Following the completion of an early draft of the instrument, approval for the proposed saturation research project was sought and received from the Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Academic Council, the Director of Institutional Research, and the President of Michigan State University. Each of these gentlemen made several 14helpful comments and criticisms as to the adequacy of the questionnaire. With the help of these men, as well as that of others, including three former faculty Academic Council members who completed, criticized, and commented upon an early draft of the instrument, the final version of the instrument was prepared. The instrument and cover letter (Appendix A) was distributed to each of the members of the 1972-73 Academic Council in the latter part of January. The completed questionnaires were collected shortly thereafter, followed by the analysis of the data with the assistance of the MSU computer facilities. In order to adapt the data to the specific purposes of the study, the computer analysis will include the following statistics compiled for each item: 1. Mean 2. Mode 5- Standard deviation 4-. Frequency distribution In addition, to facilitate comparison of subgroups within the Academic Council, the above statistics are to be calculated on each item for each of the following subgroups: I. Students 1. 2. 3. 4-. 5. 6. All Students (n = 36) Graduate Students (n = 11) Undergraduate Students (n = 25) Liberal Arts Students (n = 7) Natural Science Students (n = 13) Social Science Students (n = 16) II- Faculty 1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 6. III. All Faculty (n = 67) Long Term Faculty (n « 19) Short Term Faculty (n = 48) Liberal Arts Faculty (n = 11) Natural Science Faculty (n = 30) Social Science Faculty (n = 23) Administrators 1. 2. 34. 5- All Administrators (n = 31) Liberal Arts Administrators (n * 2) Natural Science Administrators (n = 8) Social Science Administrators (n = 7) Non-affiliated Administrators (n = 15) Following the analysis of the data from the question­ naire, using appropriate hypothesis testing techniques, a series of follow-up interviews took place. Those Academic Council members interviewed were chosen randomly and representatively from the major component groups, the administrators, faculty, and students. The interview technique is included for the purpose of complementing the data from the greaterdepth questionnairewith information of and clarity, thus utilizing theadvantages of both techniques. The interviews further provide data for the testing the representativeness of the respondents to the non-respondents. The interviews will be of the semistructured variety, with the focus and tone being set by a series of struc­ tured questions. The interviewer will then probe deeply, using open ended questions in order to obtain more complete data on points of special interest. The semistructured interview has the advantage of being reasonably objective 16 while still permitting a more thorough understanding of the respondents' opinions and reasons behind them than would be possible from using the mailed questionnaire alone. Need and Significance of the Study The question of whether or not students should continue to have a voice in academic governance, and probably more importantly, to what degree, is currently one of the important issues facing Michigan State Univer­ sity and American higher education. The problem is complicated because the tendency toward expansion of formal student participation has exceeded the development of a justifiable educational foundation. In 1957* I»unn reported that, "No precise rationale for student partici­ pation has gained universal acceptance among educators." (98:4-) In 1970* McGrath indicated that little progress has been made in this area when he declared, "Neither experience nor informed opinion has yet definitely established in which bodies students should have member­ ship, what proportion of the total they should be, or how they should be selected." (106:104-) One noted educational researcher notes the signifi­ cance of survey research in dealing with such problems: "Survey research is probably best adapted to obtaining personal and social facts, beliefs, and attitudes. It is significant that although hun­ dreds of thousands of words are spoken and written about education and about what people presumably 17 think about education, there is little dependable information on the subject. We simply do not know what people's attitudes toward education are." (90:406) The deficiency in experience and informed opinion and the need for its correction, is also recognized at Michigan State University. The "Introduction" to the MSU Bylaws for Academic Governance (1971) expresses the experimental nature of the current plan for involving students in academic governance: "The pattern of student participation set forth in this document is to be tried experimentally for a period of two years, beginning May 19, 1971* At the end of this time, the pattern is to be recon­ sidered by the Academic Council and the Academic Senate. These bodies will then be free to amend or confirm the pattern as experience shall have taught us." The significance of the proposed study derives from the fact that it is the only post hoc survey of the attitudes of the MSU Academic Council to be conducted prior to the upcoming institutional evaluation. As such, this survey of those directly connected with student participation at the highest academic governance level should prove immediately helpful in focusing attention upon the strengths and weaknesses of the MSU experiment in student involvement in academic governance for the benefit of subsequent researchers. Further, by comparison of component groups, this study attempts to consider certain attitudinal factors which may prove critical to the success or failure of student participation in the MSU Academic Council. While 18 structure and guidelines are important, the ultimate success of a governing body may well depend to a great degree upon the subtle feelings, faith, and degree of trust, both exhibited and perceived, by those involved. Taken in the wider context of American higher educa­ tion, as a whole, this study represents an important step in the development of a body of research concerning student participation in academic governance. While the conclu­ sions drawn from this survey can technically be inferred no further than the 1972-73 Michigan State University Academic Council, they do provide an indication of how student, faculty, and administrative participants of a high level academic governance body at a large public university view the issues and the impact of student involvement on the institution* As such, the results of this study can be utilized hypothetically by other similar institutions as they seek to determine the gover­ nance structure best suited to their needs. Limitations of the Study The proposed study, by the nature of its design, has limited application beyond the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council. This limitation is, at the same time, a source of strength. The relatively small population under examination is the body most experienced in the area of investigation and therefore eminently qualified to provide 19 important insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the MSU experiment in student participation at the Academic Council level. The study is limited by the deficiencies inherent in all questionnaire studies. Particularly important are concerns about the instrument, such as, validity, and reliability. These dangers hopefully have been minimized through extensive discussions with authorities in the area of MSU student participation, and with experts skilled in survey research and design. These discussions resulted in the elimination or restatement of many ambiguous, confusing, and otherwise inappropriate items. Another concern arising from the design of the study is the necessity of obtaining a very high percentage of usable responses. This potential obstacle places high priority on instrument development, perceived relevancy and importance of the issue, and the quality of the interaction between the researcher and the respondent. Definition of Terms Academic Administrators (or Administrators) Those persons serving in such positions as president, provost, vice-presidents, deans, associate deans, assistant deans, directors, assistant directors, associate directors, etc. Academic Council The Academic Council is composed of the President, the Provost, the elected faculty representatives, the student representatives, the deans of the colleges, and certain administrators designated as ex officio members. The Academic Council acts for and on behalf of the Academic Senate and 20 advises the President on all matters of educa­ tional policy; approves or rejects major changes in the curricula; and considers proposals on matters pertaining to the general welfare of the University. Academic Freedom Icaidemic' freedom consists of the absence of, or protection from, such restraints or pressures that create in the minds of academic scholars (teachers, research workers, and students) fears and anxieties which may inhibit them from respon­ sibly and freely studying, investigating, discussing, or publishing matters of interest to them. Academic Governance Those processes and procedures used in a univer­ sity to determine policies and practices regarding academic matters. Educational matters are dis­ cussed, alternatives identified, and priorities for action or Inaction are established. Liberal Arts This' term refers to students, faculty, and adminis­ trators affiliated with the College of Arts and Letters, Justin Morill College, the department of American Thought and Language, and the depart­ ment of Humanities in the University College at Michigan State University. Natural Science This term refers to students, faculty, and adminis­ trators affiliated with the colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Engineering, Human Medicine, Natural Science, Osteopathic Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Lyman Briggs College, and the University College Department of Natural Science at Michigan State University. Non-Affiliates (or Non-Affiliated Administrators) This term reTers to those administrators whose title prevents classification according to the broad academic areas of liberal arts, natural sciences, or social sciences. Examples of titles falling in this classification include Vice-President for Student Affairs, Director of the Honor's College, and Director of Libraries. 21 Social and Behavioral Science This term refers ifo students, faculty, and adminis tratora affiliated with 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 Invo1vement (or Participation) The practice oT“ allowing students an opportunity to express their opinions and vote on academic matters in university, college, or departmental decision-making bodies. Overview The present investigation of the attitudes of the members of the Michigan State University Academic Council appears best pursued in terms of the following chapter outline: Chapter I The Problem Chapter II Review of the Literature: Student Participation in Academic Governance Chapter III A Historical Overview of Student Par­ ticipation in Academic Governance at Michigan State University Chapter IV Analysis of the Data Chapter V Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations The initial chapter of the proposed study will begin with an introduction to the issues surrounding formal student participation in Academic governance at Michigan State University and generally, throughout American higher education. Following a concise definition of purpose and design, the chapter will conclude with remarks concerning the need, significance, and the limitations of the study. 22 The following chapter will deal exclusively with an elucidation of the written opinions and attitudes of commentators on contemporary American higher education. These opinions are to he discussed in terms of the pre­ viously mentioned four areas of concern, i.e., academic freedom, administrative efficiency, community cohesion, and educational value. The third chapter will consist of a detailed historical review of the development of the current state of student participation in academic gover­ nance at Michigan State University, particularly at the Academic Council level. Special attention is to he given to the attempted resolution of those issues raised in the previous chapter. The development of the instrument and the analysis of the data will constitute one major portion of the fourth chapter. Also the data from the questionnaire and from the interviews will he examined and analyzed with a view toward, developing evidence sufficient to provide illumination concerning the questions raised in the "purpose" section. The final chapter of the proposed study is to con­ sist of a summary and conclusion section followed hy recommendations concerning the future state of student participation in the academic governance of Michigan State University. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE: STUDENT PARTICIPATION Introduction As noted in the previous chapter, the recent litera­ ture of higher education contains many variations on many positions concerning student involvement in the academic governance of contemporary American higher education. On most college and university campuses, there is continuing concern and controversy relating to the issue of the role of the student in the governance of the institution. Most of the rhetoric focuses on questions such as the following: What are the rights and responsibilities of students in governance? S l l f f ^i f*-* — V — v r'rsw n W W V ~ - it r W +-r\ W W Should they be involved? Vi A ■ meeting of the Michigan State University Academic Council adjourned after having approved the following resolution: The Academic Council recognizes the need for a comprehensive reform of the University's rules and structures dealing with the academic freedom of student, 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 diversi­ fication of its functions have altered the relations between students, faculty, and admini stration; 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 educational and social issues of the University. (56s37) The task of implementing this resolution eventually became the responsibility of the Faculty Committee on otudent Affairs whose members produced a version of the document entitled "Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University" for distribution at the June 7* 1966, meeting at the Academic Council. The summer and fall of 1966 saw extensive discussion and study of the report and numerous proposed changes introduced by faculty, students, and administrators alike. From these delibera­ tions, there emerged a basic difference of opinion between students and faculty concerning the academic rights and responsibilities of students. 69 The student position was advocated vigorously by the officers and student representatives of the Associated Students of Michigan State University, and focused upon broadening the student role in the academic affairs of the University. The conflicting position argued by several faculty members, contended that the report had overcommitted the University in this area and that con­ ditions could easily arise in which the best interests of the institution could be adversely affected. (56:57) The report was returned to the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs in order to resolve this and other diffi­ culties and develop a revision more acceptable to the campus community. This revision was completed and dis­ tributed to the members of the Academic Council on December 6, 1966, at which time a special meeting was called for January 4, 1967- After four days of meetings in which each point was carefully considered, and many were clarified and ammended, the Academic Council approved the report. Shortly thereafter, it was approved by the Academic Senate on February 28, 1967 1 3X1(1 adopted by the Board of Trustees on March 16. (56:58-59) The passage of the "Academic Freedom Report" began a new era at Michigan State University. The report was intended to be a general document, one that would not set down specifics, but would have directions or guidelines for the specific rules that would have to be carefully considered and followed prior to their implementation. (60) A number of provisions outlined new guidelines for the protection of basic student rights in the University. These statements reaffirmed principles that were consis­ tent to a great degree with many of the arguments supporting formal student involvement in academic affairs at other colleges and universities, as well as at Michigan State University. Among the concepts and guidelines are the recognition of the right of students to participate in the development of student conduct regulations (Article 1 Section 1.5*03); the need for clearly established proce­ dures and channels for appeal and review of violations and regulations (Article 1, Section 1.5*10); the need for educationally sound regulations (Article 2, Section 2.1.4.7) the protection of designated student rights and responsi­ bilities in academic areas (Article 2, Section 2.1.4.1. and Section 2.1.4.8 ); the affirmation of freedom from censorship for the Michigan State News (Article 6 ); and clearly defined judicial guidelines and procedures (Article 4). (2 ) Particularly significant to subsequent efforts concerning the broad area of student participation in academic governance were those guidelines designed to clarify and improve student-facuity relationships. These provisions reaffirm the ''primacy and centrality of the faculty" in educational concerns, but call upon all 71 members of the academic community to share in this respon­ sibility (Article 2 , Section 2.1.1.). In addition, they asserted that final authority in the classroom is held by the faculty (Article 2, Section 2.1.1.) and that tne competence of faculty members can be judged only by pro­ fessionals (Article 2, Section 2.2.4-.). The committee was aware of potential areas of disagreement between students and faculty and emphasized that the rights of students are to be reconciled with the rights of faculty by estab­ lishing channels for student complaints (Article 2, Sec­ tion 2 .2 .7 «) and providing for referral of student recommendations to appropriate departmental agencies (Article 2, Section 2.2.8 .2). Pedore saw the "Academic Freedom Report" as signifying a new dimension in student-University relations. It indicates a strong university commitment to understand student problems and a willingness to successfully resolve them in the future through establishing procedures through which orderly change can be accomplished. (56:59) The responsibilities of the faculty and the administration were not greatly altered by the adoption of the document, but the basic thrust was to more fully incorporate students as party to the social trust of the University. "The Massey Report" In addition to the "Academic Freedom Report," the recommendations of the Committee on Undergraduate 72 Education (CUE) provided impetus to the formalization of the student role in institutional affairs. Appointed on February 8 , 19&7* by President John A. Hannah, CUE was assigned the task of reviewing the entire undergraduate educational process including topics such as curriculum, teaching, advising, and student involvement in the academic community. Following seven months of study, during which time the "Academic Freedom Report" was formally accepted, the committee released its report which included recommendations on almost every phase of undergraduate student life, including participation in academic decision-making. Much of the emphasis on student participation was directed toward lower level decision­ making on departmental committees dealing with teaching assistants, on a system for rewarding good teaching, on increasing departmental communication with majors, and on establishing departmental teaching committees. (1 9 1 ) At this time the Academic Council was primarily a university-wide, faculty decision-making body composed of approximately 100 members plus one graduate student and two undergraduate student representatives who served without voting privileges. (153:1) On November 5* 1968, the Academic Council approved a motion directing its Committee on Committees to appoint, as soon as possible, an ad. hoc committee to study the matter of student parti­ cipation in the academic government of the University, notably with respect to the Academic Council and its standing committees. This committee was urged to present its recommendations to the Academic Council in sufficient time for the Council to bring the matter before the Academic Senate at its Spring, 1969, meeting. The ad hoc committee's recommendations were to include the following number of student representatives, manner of selection, and capacity (e.g. voting or ex officio non-voting). Professor Gerald Massey was elected as committee chairman and it was decided that the ad hoc committee was to include six faculty members, two administrators, three undergraduates and two graduate students. (1 1 1 :1 -2 ) Prior to the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government, or the "Massey Committee", beginning in the Fall of 1968, there had been no systematic attempt to involve students in the academic decision-making process at Michigan State University Tn an interview in the Michigan State University News. Professor Gerald J. Massey made the following comments: "There are departments where students sit on every committee except promotion and tenure with vote— and even on that committee they sit to establish criteria and standards for granting promotions and tenure. At the other extreme, there are depart­ ments that do absolutely nothing— they consider themselves open and responsive to students, and at the same time, they complain about student apathy. And they feel perfectly satisfied about what they're doing." (1 9 1 ) 74The actual work of the committee began in January, 1 9 6 9 * and initially attempted to determine, by means of a questionnaire, the attitudes of Michigan State University deans, department chairmen, directors, and committee chairmen concerning the present role of students, an evaluation of these roles, and plans and opinions con­ cerning the proper role of students in academic governance. A summary of this study was compiled and made available in March of 1969. (54-: 71-72) The initial meetings of the committee were primarily informational in nature, focusing on reaching a common understanding of the basic issues involved in the question of student participation in academic governance. In his 1970 dissertation, Enos found that among the initial assumptions of the committee were the following: (1 ) the ideal to strive for was "the maximum degree of student participation, limited by the legitimate demands of the faculty end administration"; (2 ) to "avoid suggesting strict guidelines that may not be applicable— (due to) differences among departments in size, existing structures, needs, etc."; and (3 ) "everyone should work together to best further the educational aims of the University." (54-;72) After several meetings in which general principles and then specific proposals were agreed upon, the Com­ mittee's report was presented at the May 27, 1969* meeting 75 of the Academic Council (for the complete text of the Report, see Appendix D) . Professor Massey explained that the report was designed to increase student partici­ pation in university government in order to bring fresh perspective and full dialogue without prejudicing the final determination by experienced people in the academic community. The members of the ad hoc committee were present to respond to any questions that might be addressed to them. (112:5) "The Massey Report" consisted basically of a Preamble and fifteen recommendations. The Preamble stated that the protection of the values of the academic community were the joint responsibility of students, faculty, and adminis­ trators and that this responsibility requires that each group have an effective voice in the University's decision­ making structures. The first group of three recommenda­ tions affirmed the authority of the University's adminis­ trative units to extend opportunities to participate to any member of the university community and that, in general, voting privileges should be a part of these opportunities. Recommendations 4- through 10 dealt with student participation at the university level. The Academic Council was to include one undergraduate representative for each of the colleges with selection procedures to be developed by each college. Also there were to be three undergraduate and two graduate representatives at-large. 76 One of these student representatives was to be elected by his peers on the Council to serve on the Steering Committee. The Report specified that exact numbers of graduate and undergraduate students be seated on the various standing committees, the Graduate Council and that appropriate student representation be utilized in the selection of principal academic officers and on special committees. Recommendations 11 through 13 called for meaningful student representation on college-level academic govern­ mental bodies including standing committees, ad hoc committees, and selection committees. Meaningful student participation was also recommended for similar activities on the departmental level in the final two recommendations. After lengthy discussion, the Council voted to refer the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government to the faculties of the various colleges, the Graduate Council, and other educational units of the University for study and discussion, much to the dismay of the members of the ad hoc committee. Although the Council went on record as being in sympathy with the spirit of the recommendations of the ad hoc committee as stated in the Preamble to its report, they felt that the significance of the report merited further discussion and study by the entire academic community. The Council resolved to resume consideration of the report 77 the following Fall in time for the next scheduled meeting of the Academic Senate. (112:7-9) The "Massey Report" was returned to the Academic Council on October 14, 1969* to a chorus of objections, reservations, and ammendments. Among the expressed opinions, were endorsements of the report from the repre­ sentatives of ASMSU and the Council of Graduate Students. Most of the faculty speakers, however, expressed serious doubts concerning specific recommendations found in the report. By the conclusion of the meeting, agreement had been reached on an ammended form of the Preamble which substituted the phrase "appropriate voice" for the "effective voice" with regard to the student role in academic governance. (113:4-6) At this point basic differences appeared among members of the Academic Council concerning the desirability of incorporating students in academic governance according to the Massey Committee recommendations and the probable consequences for the University* s educational programs. (5z*-i7z*-) The October 21, meeting of the Academic Council consisted of a continuation of the debate. The "Massey Report" was criticized for lacking a specific rationale for the recommendations, as well as lacking consistency and logic. A motion to rewrite the document was defeated and the council proceeded to approve recommendations 1 and 2 following extended debate and two ammendments to the first recommendation. (114:2-3) The next day the Council 78 met and discussed further the first two recommendations and then soundly defeated, by a vote of 3 to 3 9 » the third recommendation, which called for an investigation of the possibility of granting academic credit for student participation. (114:3) Recommendation 4, which would have provided for one voting student representative to the Academic Council from each of the colleges was debated at the October 27 session of the Council. Among the objections to this recommendation were the following: 1 ) inefficiency due to the increase in size of the Academic Council; 2) the difficulties involved in conducting elections at the college level; and 3 ) possible detrimental consequences arising from student participation. (116:1-2) In the midst of strong opposition the Council adjourned and reconvened the following day, at which time a student representative offered a motion to recommit the report to a committee whose members shall be appointed by the President. Following further debate, the motion was carried with the understanding that the new committee report would come back in two months. (1 1 7 :1 ) It is interesting to note that the motion to recommit came from a student, when the majority of students strongly favored adoption of the "Massey Report." One faculty member, reflecting on this apparently contradictory event, concluded that the philosophy of the report on the "how" 79 of Implementation was obviously unacceptable to a large number of faculty members. The student members of the council felt that if they insisted on the philosophy of the document, it would be thoroughly defeated by faculty majority sentiment. Because they realized this,it was the students who decided that the document better go back to the committee where there existed the possibility of an acceptable compromise. (28:1) The Council then developed a number of guidelines to assist the new committee. of the following points: These guidelines consisted 1 ) that the new committee accept the principle of student participation in all university bodies; 2 ) that it alternatively develop machinery for parallel student structures; 3 ) that its report be con­ sistent with the philosophy of the present By-laws of the Faculty; and 4-) that it not be required to reconcile its recommendations to existing legislation. w W M +rVi e»+7 W A d U W U A A r* W n WH M Vi a a W - U W W rymrn'i +•+•**/* V i l l l i l I* U w w > r»nT>rtn, ( *) •«* V X U It was further no W t /H W Mr and ammended by the Academic Council, should serve as one of the working documents for the new committee. The new committee was also permitted to set minimum levels of student participation in college and departmental govern­ ment and advised to confine its attention to academic government of faculty and students only. (1 1 7 ;2 - 3 ) Many explanations were subsequently offered regarding the demise of the "Massey Report," but the lack of agree­ ment concerning the failure of the report often times 80 seemed to approach that of* the actual Council delibera­ tions during which action was taken on only the Preamble and three of the report's 15 recommendations. the reasons most prominently cited were: Some of the lack of a written rationale for the recommendations; inconsistency with the thinking of the majority of the members of the Academic Council; the lack of a clearly defined statement on roles of students and facility; and the committee's assumption of certain premises that proved to be unacceptible to the Academic Council. (28:1, 9) In addition, objections were raised during the debate on the grounds that the wording of the report was vague and at times lacked logic and consistency. (117:2) An informal survey by the MSU Faculty News revealed that Council members from nine colleges shared degrees of dissatisfaction with the "Massey Report" on its rationale, and its attempts to assign specific numbers of students to standing committees. Several faculty members said they endorsed the idea of soliciting student views but they eaqpressed the concern that student participation was being equated with student power in matters for which faculty would be held accountable. (1 ?2 ) Professor Massey's response to these criticisms were made in absentia from the University of Pittsburgh where he was on sabbatical leave during the final deliberations of the Academic Council. In a letter to the MSU Faculty News, he wrote that, "The charge that the report is 81 inconsistent and 'illogical' must have been advanced facetiously. As a professional logician, I can offer expert testimony that in none of the many senses of those terms known to logicians is the report either incon­ sistent or illogical." (1 0 1 ) In response to the criticism that specific rationales for the recommendations were not included and the report's terminology was overly vague, Professor Massey writes: "I see this as an inevitable feature of such a report. For each recommendation adopted by the committee, there were probably 13 distinct rationales, one for each member of the committee— Some have criticized the report for using vague terms like 'significant representation' and 'appropriate num­ bers'. The vagueness was deliberate. The vague language of the report was intended to give the several faculties, acting in good faith, maximum scope and flexibility in applying the report's general recommendations to their particular contexts. (101 ) Concerning the charge that the assumption of power by students who cannot be held accountable for their actions, Professor Massey writes: "Some critics have hinted at a dimunition of 'faculty power.' I concur with Acting President Walter Adams ...who openly acknowledged that sharing of power is the basic issue. Adams has himself long preached that sharing of power often leads to an increase rather than to a diminution (of faculty power). There are even times when power can be lost by a refusal to share it with those who have a plain right to participate. The present, I think, is one of those times. Students do have a right to help shape academic policy, and that right will be exercised (e.g. students will be heard by the Board of Trustees) whether or not we, the faculty, decide to transform faculty government into academic government. 82 By opening academic government to students, we can enhance the power of our councils which will there often speak, with an authority that must he heeded, for the total academic community. By keeping channels closed, we run the risk of making them increasingly ineffectual and ultimately irrelevant." (101 ) The significance of the "Massey Report" lies not in the fact that it was rejected, but that it represented a strong institutional commitment on the part of Michigan State University with regard to student participation in academic governance. The same Academic Council meeting that rejected the Massey Committee's recommendations, saw the urgent reaffirmation of the principle of student involvement. This took the form of setting guidelines and a timetable by the Council for the second attempt to implement a workable scheme for involving students in the academic governance of Michigan State University. The "McKee Report" In November, 1969* following extensive deliberations, the Academic Council recommended that the "Massey Report", submitted to the Council in May, 1969* be returned to a new faculty-student committee for revision. Faculty members were chosen from the ranks of the Academic Council by the President, acting on the recommendations of the Council's Steering Committee. The student members were chosen by the President upon recommendation from the non­ voting student members and alternate student members of the Academic Council. (150:1) The New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government chose James McKee, Professor of Sociology, to serve as its chairman. The "McKee Committee began its work with the fundamental conviction that the discussions in the Academic Council clearly indicated sub­ stantial agreement that students should be involved in the academic decision-making process of the University. The nature of that participation, the numbers of students to be involved, and the methods to be used to select students were issues left unresolved in the "Massey Report" debate. The "McKee Committee" set as its goal, the resolution of these issues, but deliberately did not always attempt to be as comprehensive or as specific as its predecessor, the "Massey Committee". Having observed the problems exper­ ienced as a result of over-specifying procedures, the New Committee chose to suggest some immediate steps toward the goal involvement of students in academic governance. In addition this group proposed establishing the structure through which the system of academic governance could be continuously evaluated and changes made when desirable. (150:1) This report (Appendix E) made recommendations in five areas: 1 ) the involvement of students in the academic affairs in the departments, colleges, and centers and institutes in the University; 2) the involvement of students within the Academic Council; 3) the involvement 84of students on various standing committees of the Academic Council; 4-) the provision for specific minority student representation in academic government; and 5 ) the establishment of a new Faculty-Student Committee on Academic Governance; the redefinition of the responsibility of the Faculty Affairs Committee; the redefinition and reconstitution of the Student Affairs Committee. (150:2) Shortly after its formation, the New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government, like its predecessor, conducted a survey of all departments, colleges, members of the Academic Council, and directors of centers and institutes in order to ascertain the present state of and climate of acceptance concerning student par­ ticipation. In addition, a general request for opinions and information was issued by the Committee. The results indicated that in late 1 9 6 9 , there were examples of almost every possible type of arrangement of student involvement in the academic decision-making process at the department and college level at Michigan State Univer­ sity. On the basis of these findings, the "McKee Committee" felt it would be unwise to insist on any one model for the involvement of students in the affairs of departments, colleges, centers, and institutes. (1 5 0 :3 ) Following three months of deliberations, the "New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government" submitted its report to the Academic Council (see appendix for the complete text) on February 17* 1970. 85 One major group of recommendations called for each department, school, college, center and institute that has academic responsibilities within the University, or whose work concerns students, to develop methods of involving both undergraduate and graduate students in the academic decision-making of that unit, with each unit deciding what makes up its constituency. (1 5 0 :5 ) At the Academic Council level the "McKee Committee" recommended that each college be represented by one voting undergraduate student, and that those colleges with graduate or professional training functions be repre­ sented with a total of six voting graduate student repre­ sentatives. In addition, a total of ten seats on the Academic Council were recommended specifically for the representation of minority groups. The committee further proposed that varying but specific numbers of under­ graduate, graduate, and minority student representatives be seated with full voting privileges on the standing committees of the Academic Council. (150:9-13) In order to avoid one of the strong criticisms of its predecessor, the "McKee Committee" recommended that the Faculty Affairs Committee report to the Elected Faculty Council, the Council's faculty members, rather than to the entire Academic Council, on matters of exclusive con­ cern to the faculty, such as salary, fringe benefits, and insurance. The committee further proposed that the 86 By-laws of the University be changed to provide that the Elected Faculty Council may, by majority vote, refer matters of exclusive concern to the faculty directly to the Academic Senate. In this way, the Committee felt that these sensitive issues could be dealt with exclusively by faculty. The necessity of continuous study and evaluation of the governance function at Michigan State University was recognized by the New Committee and accomodated in the form of a recommendation that would establish a University Committee on Academic Governance* The proposed committee was charged with the responsibility for continuing review of the By-laws of the University to assure that they are being observed and with the responsibility for making recommendations to the Council for whatever changes in the By-laws the Committee's investigations indicated. The Committee was to study, on a continuous basis, the steps being taken throughout the University to involve students in academic governance and to make recommendations to the Council when appropriate. (150:16) Partly in response to criticisms of the "Massey Report", the new committee chose to include a rationale for each of the document's 52 recommendations, as well as its reasons for rejecting alternative courses of action. These statements of rationale indicate that the Committee displayed great faith, not only in the ability of student 87 members to contribute valuable insights to the decision­ making processes, but also in their good will and commit­ ment. These statements in the document, taken as a whole, further suggest that the majority of the New Committee members were philosophically alligned with the concept of the University as a united academic community as advocated by Taylor, Cole, and others in Chapter II. Most of the student reaction to the "McKee Report" was favorable and enthusiastic to the point of holding residence hall information sessions and making copies of the report available in residence halls and at the ASMSU office. The prospect of having voice and vote on Academic matters, to even a larger extent than recommended in the Massey document, was particularly attractive to students. (152) The editors of the Michigan State News stated that: "It is our opinion that the McKee Report is the most important document to come out of this university since the Academic Freedom Report. At the very least, this Report would establish officially that students are to be considered co-equal members of the university community, rather than raw fodder for the diploma mill. We urge the Academic Council to pass the McKee report in its entirety....Further, we urge the student body to throw their full support behind the drive for passage of this document. The time is short, but there is still some. Write letters, make phone calls, talk to professors and other students, and, maybe show your interest and thereby invalidate the claim of McKee detractors that the students 'aren’t interested'." (4-6) Between March 3 and March 12, the Academic Council met four times, spending nearly twelve hours debating the 88 recommendations and the rationale of the report of the "McKee Committee." These often emotion-packed discussions resulted in the approval of 22 of the committee's recom­ mendations, most of them with little or no change in wording. Four recommendations (No. 28-31) were tabled temporarily while the six recommendations dealing with minority representation on the Academic Council and the standing committees proved extremely controversial and were deferred pending action by a special ad hoc committee (No. 19-23). (97) This special committee■was to investigate the implica­ tions of the recommendations concerning minority represen­ tation. While the debate indicated that virtually all of the members of the Academic Council agreed with the desirability of assuring adequate representation of minor­ ity students on the Academic Council and its committees with full voice and vote, serious reservations were evident concerning the following specific recommendations of the "McKee Report": 1. the inclusivity of the minority groups specified and the adequacy of their definition; 2. the lack of specificity in the procedures to be employed in the selection of minority student representation; 5. the possible illegality in the proposed methods for assuring representation of minority students. (120) The Ad Hoc Committee on Minority Student Representa­ tion deliberated these points and presented revised 89 recommendations which were approved at the April 7* 1970, Academic Council meeting. The Committee agreed that inclusion within a specific minority was a matter of self definition and recommended that minority group membership is be 3t decided by the individual. With regard to specific selection procedures, the ad hoc committee chose to auth­ orize the Office of Black Affairs to develop these methods. It was felt that OBA had sufficient existing personnel, resources, and a basic framework sufficient to the task. (121 ) In addition, the committee recommended that the Office of Black Affairs report the arrangement for selec­ tion of minority representatives to the Committee on Academic Governance by December 1, 1970* ^he committee further asked each academic unit within the University to ensure adequate minority student representation to the Academic Council. Finally, the Committee on Academic Governance was charged with reviewing the process of minority student representation and report to the council in three years. (1 2 1 ) Concerning the legal implications of the minority student Academic Council representative recommendations, the University attorney assured the Council that the University would not be in danger of violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution, and that the exis­ tence of a reasonable basis for a classification had been 90 established by the U.S. Supreme Court as meeting consti­ tutional requirements. He documented this claim by quoting the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Lindsley vs. Natural Gas Company case of 1961, and added that this decision had been cited in recent Michigan Supreme Court cases. The recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Minority Student Representation were then approved with minor changes. (121:5) Following passage of the remainder of the "McKee Report" recommendations, a new ad hoc committee was appointed and instructed to draft the recommendations of the "McKee Report", as ammended and approved, into by-law ammendments which then could be submitted to the Academic Senate for incorporation into the By-laws of the Faculty. Following approval by the Academic Senate, the ammendments to the By-laws would then go to the Board of Trustees. The Academic Council met on May 15* to complete its deliberations of by-law revisions necessaury for implemen­ tation of the recommendations of the New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government. Although the proposed by-law revisions were approved relatively easily with only minor changes, a major obstacle developed, however, with the necessary ammendments to the "Academic Freedom Report". A motion was introduced to add the Sleeted Faculty Council to the list of groups having power to approve ammendments to the "Academic Freedom Report". 91 The motivation for this move derived from the fact that with 51 students added to the Academic Council, the elected faculty members would no longer he a majority, and further there would be no body with a majority of faculty with the power to veto proposed ammendments to the "Academic Freedom Report". Although the motion was defeated, the margin was so narrow (30-28) that Professor McKee chose to compromise this point in order to improve the chances of passage of the by-law revisions, necessary for implementation of the entire report, in the Academic Senate. The results of McKee's action was the revision of article 7-1-2. of the "Academic Freedom Report" to ensure that any proposed ammendments that specifically refer to faculty professional rights and responsibilities must be approved by the Elected Faculty Council before they go to the Academic Council. (31:4-) Although the "McKee Report" had survived the opposi­ tion in the Academic Council, the by-law revisions, upon which the report was contingent, still had to pass the Academic Senate. Prior to the Senate meeting on June 3* 1970, the local chapter of the AAUP went on record as opposing the "McKee Report". The AAUP's position endorsed the principle of student participation in academic gover­ nance, but objectived to several of the specific points in the McKee document for essentially the same reasons brought to the floor of the Academic Council, (l) 92 When the faculty arrived for the June 3» Senate vote on the proposed by-law revisions, they were greeted by a memorandum prepared by 12 faculty members. This memorandum reportedly endorsed the value and the objective of student participation but objected to the implementation of the "McKee Report" primarily on the grounds that its passage would mean an end to elected faculty dominance in academic affairs. Concern was also expressed concerning the legality of the provisions for minority student representation, and whether or not students have a right to be involved in decisions concerning faculty matters. Also raised again was the question of granting 30 percent of the student seats on the Academic Council to four percent of the student body. (5^:89-90) Following dis­ cussion of the memorandum the proposed by-law ammendments were soundly defeated by the Academic Senate by a vote of 111 for and 427 against. The Senate then approved a resolution endorsing the objective of student involvement in academic governance but which referred the by-law revisions back to the Council for reconsideration and clarification. The resolution requested that the Council try to complete its by-law recommendations prior to the Fall, 1970, Senate meeting. All of the academic units of the University were asked to continue planning along the general lines indicated by the "McKee" proposals and that January 1 , 1971 1 te made the target date for implementing plans for greater student participation. (165:4) 93 James B. McKee, chairman of* the committee, attributed the defeat of the New Committee's recommendations to the fear that the students would hold greater powers than the faculty. McKee charged that opponents of the report conducted a "fear campaign," hinting that to give students more power meant that the faculty would have to relinquish much of its power. Following the defeat of the recommen­ dations and the return of the issue to the Academic Council, three alternatives were open to the Council. The report could be returned to the McKee Committee for further revisions or a new committee could be formed to revise the document. The third alternative was to revise the report from the floor of the Council. (108:1) Like the "Massey Report" the "McKee Report" brought formal student participation at Michigan State University a step closer to reality. The principle of student participation was reaffirmed several times throughout the uelibex*utions by various groups including the opponents of the "McKee Report". In addition, the principle of involvement in academic affairs by student members of minority groups was accepted in principle after consider­ able discussion. The task of the Council now was clearly one of compromise and mediation of the concepts of an effective student role with the preservation of faculty rights. 94 "The Taylor Report" The October 6 , 1970* meeting of the Michigan State University Academic Council saw the approval of a resolu­ tion establishing a special three-man faculty panel for the purpose of developing workable guidelines for imple­ menting student participation in academic governance. This Special Panel was to be chaired by Professor John F.A. Taylor and was instructed to emphasize mediation in its proceedings, and to make every effort to achieve recon­ ciliation and creative compromise of the various points of view that have been expressed concerning those recom­ mendations of the "McKee Committee Report" that were controversial. In areas in which mediation fails to achieve consensus, the Special Panel was given the power to formulate its own recommendations in order to produce a revised document that would have a reasonable chance of approval by the Academic Senate and the Board of Trus­ tees. The Panel was further encouraged to consult with and consider the views of students, student groups and organizations, faculty members and organizations, adminis­ trators, and members of the Board of Trustees, and to make every reasonable effort to prepare its report and recommendations for submission to the November, 1970, meeting of the Academic Council. (124:6) The Special Panel completed their task and at the November 3* 1970, Council meeting, presented their report 95 entitled Hevised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Government (Appendix F). (156) This report, which came to be known as the "Taylor Report" was presented in the form of ammendments to the By-laws (see appendix for the complete text) and differed from the previous report in that it omitted separate statements of rationale for the specific recommendations. Among the more significant differences appearing in the "Taylor Report" were a series of rather precise statements which clearly defined the parameters of the authority of students in academic decision-making. As in the McKee and Massey documents, the rights of students selected by their constituents, to participate in Council deliberations with full voice and vote, was strongly affirmed. The Special Panel, undoubtedly influenced by the strong opposition encountered by the "McKee Committee", chose to exclude students from participating in decisions which the faculty conceived to lie within its perogative domain. The Special Panel was convinced that in these matters, the larger interests of the University would not be advanced by involving students. (156:3) Specifically these matters fall into the following categories: "Matters of exclusive concern to the faculty, such as their salary, leaves, insurance, and other fringe benefits, health service and housing, retirement;" (2 .5.7.1.) 96 “Matters affecting the distinctively professional duties of the faculty, namely/ the duties that flow from the faculty's obligation to maintain the i n t e l ­ lectual authority of the University as a center of detached inquiry and disinterested pursuit of truth;" (2.5-7.2.) "Matters in which the distinctively professional rights of the faculty are at issue, as in decisions concerning the substantive issuesof tenure, that is, the re-appointment, promotion, or dismissal of individual members of the faculty whose appointment places them under the rules of tenure. (2 .5 -7 -3 -) (156:6-7) The Special Panel further elaborated the basis for this separation of authority by stating: "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 rejec­ tion of student participation or a failure of respect, but a simple reminder to all parties, that disciplined capacity implies precedence in the community of scholars." (1 5 6 :5 ; One of the main professional activities of faculty members, namely the teaching function, was clearly affirmed to be a matter of student concern by the Special Panel. While professional competency was described as a necessary condition for teaching in the University, it was not felt to be a sufficient condition. The Panel clearly noted that the "Taylor Report" granted no immunity from legiti­ mate demands for excellence in teaching and that questions concerning general educational policy are matters of legitimate student concern (2.5-9-2.). (156:8) In addition, student input was encouraged at the level of department, school, institute, or residential college by a provision 97 entitling them to have formal opportunities made available to them for the presentation of their views (2.5*9.4.)Concerning individual tenure decisions, the student voice was to play a significant role (2 .5 -9 -3 .), however, the faculty retained the final authority in these matters (2.5.9-5.). (136:9) The proposed composition of the Academic Council, as recommended by the Special. Panel, was similar to that recommended by the "McKee Report,1' with important excep­ tions in the area of minority student representation. To ensure a systematic representation of non-whites and of women, ten seats were to be reserved for student represen­ tatives at large with the further qualifications that at least two of these seats be reserved for women and at least six for non-whites (4.4-.3.08., A.A.3-08.1. ) . The Special Panel recommended that these positions be filled by elections-at—large (4.4.3-08.2.), rather than delegating the authority to establish selection procedures to a campus organization as did the "McKee Committee." The basis for the at-large election procedure by the entire student community affirmed the University's intention of placing women and minorities on the Academic Council, "not because women and minorities have put themselves there, but because the University affirms its pluralism in having them there." (156:5) The Special Panel also esqplained that the wording of the recommendations 98 concerning the numbers or women and non-whites, (i.e. at least six, at least two) does not imply a quota and therefore is in compliance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-. (156:5) The Academic Council deliberations of the specific provisions of the "Taylor Report" began at the November 5, 1970, meeting. The first ammendment approved by the Council affirmed the right of any regularly enrolled full-time student to participate in the affairs in the academic department (or other unit) and in the college in which he is enrolled. Following additional debate, another minor ammendment was approved and several were defeated. One interesting development occurred when a facility Academic Council representative argued that if the section (2 .5 .7 .2 .) in the report outlining exclusive faculty con­ cern with matters affecting the distinctly professional duties means "...excluding students from discussing things like entrance standards and grading, then it is an inappro­ priate reservation." Professor John F.A. Taylor, chairman of the Special Panel, replied that the section was modeled after the 10th ammendment to the U.S. Constitution which reserves some rights (from the states) to the federal government. (1 8 5 :1 ) Debate on Section 1A of the introductory remarks con­ cerning student representation and the professional rights and responsibilities of the faculty was then brought to the floor in its ammended version and approved. (1 8 5 :2 ) 99 Another faculty representative to the Council expres­ sed concern with the confusion between the concepts of community of scholars and of professional association. He referred to the section reading, "Students have the right to assume their inputs...shall figure significantly in the faculty's judgement...." This faculty member expressed his belief that "there is no such meaningful entity as the right to assume." (2 9 :3 ) Section I.C of the introductory remarks was then brought to the floor. This section dealt with the com­ position of the Academic Council and the methods to be employed for the selection of student representatives. Although the Council adjourned prior to voting on Section I.C, an a m m endment was approved eliminating all references to women, and others, attempting to reduce the number of student members at-large, were defeated. (125 :3 ) The Council reconvened on November 4-, and continued discussion of Section I.C of the Revised Recommendations. A proposed ammendment, similar to the "McKee Committee" recommendation to authorize appropriate minority groups to develop procedures for selecting at-large student members of the Academic Council, was defeated. But, a motion to require the Student Committee on Nominations to consult with minority student organizations on at-large selection procedures was approved. Following additional discussion and explanation, two additional minor 100 ammendments were approved, followed by Council approval of Section I.C. (127:1) The Council continued its scrutiny of the recommenda­ tions of the "Taylor Report". Section 4.4.5-5** which authorized the Elected Faculty Council to refer to matters of exclusively faculty concern directly to the Academic Senate, was found to be inconsistent and was dropped. (127:2) Another graduate student representative was added to the University Committee on Business Affairs, and the Faculty-Student Affairs Committee became the Student Affairs Committee. The Student Affairs Committee was then denied the power to initiate or veto ammendments to the "Academic Freedom Report." (127:2) Despite the speech and relative ease of passage of the recommendations of the "Taylor Report", at least one faculty member of the Academic Council expressed personal reservations and uneasiness. The MSU Faculty News quoted a professor as telling the Academic Council: "I get the impression that we are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." The basis of cedures employed by the this concern related to the pro­ Council. "I felt we had bypassed the rationale of the report and were debating individual points in a vacuum,...scratching the surface of issues that go very deep and need a lot further scrutiny." He said that this feeling related to the accomodation of the report to what would be acceptable to the Academic Senate. (185:1) 101 The November 17, 1970* meeting of the Academic Council approved changes in the "Academic Freedom Report" .consis­ tent with the recommendations of the "Taylor Report." The Council then approved the document of the Special Panel as a whole, adding that it should be reviewed further two years after its implementation. (128:3) During the deliberations of the Academic Council, there had been little student comment expressed in the State News concerning the provisions of the "Taylor Report." The interval between approval by the Academic Council and consideration by the Academic Senate saw a considerable increase in expressed student concern. (5^:98) One student editorial reacted to the time consuming debate in the Academic Council in which the Special Panel had "their findings almost completely undone," while another advocated ASMSU censure of the Academic Council. (43:4-) Much of the editorial output was directed against what the State News staff felt was dillusions of faculty supremacy and University government by faculty cliques. (44:4, 31:4) Another editorial lamented, "The very matters for which students have sought a significant voice will become an illusive fading dream if the 'Taylor Report' is implemented as it is now composed." This same editorial expressed the fear that, "In some departments, students already have a voice in such matters as tenure, curriculum, 102 the hiring of new faculty, and other areas of academic concern. A strict interpretation of the 'Taylor Report’s' Catch 2.5-7- would eliminate such participation." This editorial concluded with the following statement: "If, however, the document (Taylor Report) remains unstreng­ thened or is weakened from the floor, we must urge its defeat." (4-8:4) Not all the students held views in common with the State News editors, however. The vice chairman of ASMSU was quoted as saying, "As dissatisfied as we all are I still hope the Senate will approve it. If it passes, we will have gained because, through action and not Just words, there will be a University community." (175:15) Another student noted that, "Taylor defines the pro­ fessional rights of faculty which were not subject to student consideration in committees. This differs from the 'McKee Report' which left the entire situation incre­ dibly vague." (175:1) In a letter to the editor submitted jointly by three undergraduates, the "Taylor Report" was advocated on the grounds that it "effectively establishes and guarantees student participation in academic matters of which students have direct knowledge as consumers.— After more than a year of debate, we feel that the report is a realistic and necessary compromise of faculty and student positions." (180:4) 103 The Academic Senate met on January 19* 1971» to consider the by-law revisions necessary for implementa­ tion. Although relatively little debate occurred prior to the important vote, three ammendments were proposed* One professor proposed an addition to the report to the effect that any faculty member who believes that his pro­ fessional rights have been denied may appeal to the Academic Council. This motion was defeated when it was announced that an ad hoc committee was currently developing grievance procedures. (20:2) The second ammendment asked that the Senate delete all mention of student participatives at-large on the grounds that statements providing for "at least six" (of ten) non-whites as student representatives at-large implies a racial quota of "not more than four" whites. In reply to arguments against any form of racial discrimin­ ation, Professor Taylor responded, "In the best of all possible worlds, I would favor the ammendment. But in our world we have to accomodate some of the cruel errors of our society." (20:2) The ammendment failed. The third ammendment proposed that the section in the document dealing with the philosophy behind the pro­ visions for minority student representation be deleted. This ammendment also failed, but a substitute motion was accepted, deleting the last sentence in that section which read: "'Not more than six' is the imposition of a quota; 104 'at least six' is, on the contrary, the acknowledgement of a right." (20:2) The final vote by the Academic Senate on the Taylor recommendations accepted the document by a strong majority. The president of the local AAUP chapter expressed his pleasure at the passage of the document, but another faculty member felt that the faculty were "voting out of sheer frustration and boredom." (20:2) Although the "Taylor Report" appeared to be extremely close to implementation, needing only the approval of the Board of Trustees, the issue remained controversial. Shortly following approval by the Academic Senate, the ASMSU Student Board filed suit against President Wharton, the Academic Council and the Academic Senate, charging that the "Taylor Report" was in violation of the "Academic Freedom Report". The ASMSU suit contended that Article 3.4.08.5- of the "Taylor Report" violates sections ?.ll, ?.2, and 1.5-03. of the "Academic Freedom Report". Article 5-4.08.3- of the "Taylor Report" exempts the sections of the "Academic Freedom Report" on faculty responsibilities and professional rights from proposed ammendments from action by the Student Affairs Committee. The Student Board of ASMSU claimed that this article was in direct violation of Article 7 of the "Academic Freedom Report." The ASMSU Board also charged that since students were excluded from the Faculty Affairs Committee then 105 faculty members should likewise be excluded from the Student Affairs Committee. This was felt to be consistent with Section 1.5-03. of the "Academic Freedom Report" that states "to the maximum extent feasible, students shall participate in formulating and revising regulations governing student conduct." (10:1) Although the Academic Council was unable to resolve this problem at its February 2, 1971* meeting, it auth­ orized its Steering Committee to try to find a workable compromise to the problem. The Steering Committee invited to its meeting for consultation purposes, representatives from the Committee to Study Faculty Rights, Responsibili­ ties, and Grievance Procedures, representatives from ASMSU, representatives from the University Student Affairs Committee and representatives from the Academic Council. This group proposed to alleviate the difficulties by deleting the exception clause in 5*4-.08.3. thereby auth­ orizing the University S t u d e n t A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e to parti­ cipate in initiating ammendments to the "Academic Freedom Report" regarding faculty rights and responsibilities. The proposal also provided for review by the University Committee on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Compensation and approval by the Elected Faculty Council prior to revisions to the "Academic Freedom Report" sections on faculty rights and responsibilities. (30:3) This ammendment was accepted by the Academic Council in its February 9* 1971* meeting. (1 2 9 :2 ) 106 Prior to debate and decision by the Academic Senate on February 23, was the scheduled meeting of the Board of Trustees on February 19. Because of the unresolved issue concerning the possible conflict with the "Academic Freedom Report", the Trustees considered the "Taylor Report" as an informational item only. One trustee is reported by the State News to have commented, "It looks as if the students are getting short changed," (154) while another felt that the report "represents about the distance that the faculty rightly thinks it can go." (141) This meeting also saw the presentation to the Board of a list of 17 weaknesses in the "Taylor Report" by the Chairman of ASMSU. (141) Following the Board of Trustees meeting, the Academic Senate met on February 23, and approved the compromise ammendment to the "Academic Freedom Report." In the first week of March, three trustees met to determine areas of trustee concern with the "Taylor Report". This group was appointed by the Board in Feb­ ruary to identify and report on the important issues. (187) At the regularly scheduled March 19, meeting, the Board, after hearing the report of its subcommittee, asked that a number of recommendations be incorporated into the By-laws along with the proposed Taylor revisions. Of the changes recommended by the Trustees, seven were accepted by the Academic Council on April 20, 1971- There were also 107 two recommendations which were voted down "by the Council. These two defeated ammendments would have: "Added to section 2.5-8* of the By-laws the sen­ tence: *In case of dispute concerning the applica­ tion of this proviso, the final judgement shall rest with the Board of Trustees.' (Section 2.5*8. per­ tains to the professional rights and duties of the faculty)." "Added to section 9.2. (on ammendement procedures) of the proposed By-laws the sentence: 'Any ammendment of the By-laws affecting the substance of academic governance shall be referred to the Board of Trustees for its approval'." A third ammendment, concerning "final authority" in the interpretation was approved, but only after deletion of the Board's recommendation which stated that, "Nothing in these By-laws shall prevent the Board from taking prompt action on urgent financial and personnel matters when such action is in the best interests of the University." (32:4) One faculty spokesman gave three reasons for the Council's opposition of the Board's recommendations. 1. The constitutional authority of the Trustees is recognized daily in practice and in section 1.2.5* of the current By-laws. 2. The proposal changes would nullify some of the responsibility the Trustees have delegated to faculty. 3* It would be an intrusion into faculty governance. Another faculty member commented that this series of proposed ammendments "violates the all-important principle of internal control of the University under the president." (32) A third Academic Council member added that he was 108 "horrified and dismayed" at the April Board meeting by the "response and lack of respect for faculty interests on the part of the Board." (32) The approved ammendments to the "Taylor Report" accomplished the following: 1. Assigned the responsibility for implementation and finance to the administrative office of each academic unit, and on the University level, to the provost and vice-president for student affairs; 2. Provided for at least five female representatives within the ten-at-large seats on the Academic Council, six of which were also to be reserved for non-whites; 3- Added one undergraduate, one graduate student to the Student Committee on Nominations. At least two women were to fill these seats; A. Provided procedures for the selection of a temporary chairman and established general working procedures for the Student Committee on Nominations; 5- Reaffirmed the Academic Council as the final authority with regard to the interpretation of the By-laws within the constraints of the con­ stitutional authority of the Board of Trustees. (32) Having gone through all appropriate channels, the "Taylor Report" was forwarded to the Board of Trustees for what was hoped to be the final step in the approval process. On the day of the regularly scheduled Board meeting which would decide the fate of the "Taylor Report", the State News called for passage of the document despite its flaws. "If the trustees do not approve the 'Taylor Report' today, any chance of student participation in academic government will vanish for an indefinite period. The 109 Academic Council, after reluctantly offering to admit students on a limited basis to its ranks, is simply too tired of working on a report that no one really likes to take another round of ammendment. ...However, there should be no mistake about the nature of the report. It is a working agreement, giving students limited participation until a more equitable system of academic government can be developed." (50:4-) Prior to the Board meeting, some concern was expres­ sed that the Council's rejection of two recommendations proposed by the Trustees might result in further delay, but this was not the case as the Trustees unanimously approved the Report. (190) Shortly thereafter, the Steering Committee of the Faculty directed the revisions to be incorporated into the By-laws and set January 1, 1972, as the deadline for actual implementation by colleges and departments. (54-:10) The intent of this chapter has been one of attempting to focus upon the significant events and dominant atti­ tudes which characterize the context within which the current experiment in student involvement in academic governance has developed at Michigan State University. The development of the "Academic Freedom Report" and its acknowledgement of basic student rights provided a great deal of impetus toward involving students in the Univer­ sity's academic affairs. The "Massey" and "McKee Reports", while differing significantly in several respects, were both defeated by a faculty which, for the record at least, was sympathetic toward the principle of student X10 participation. An important factor in the failure of both of these efforts to formally incorporate students in academic decision-making was the apparent inability to successfully resolve the conflict between the rights of students and the rights of faculty, particularly in the minds of faculty who have traditionally defended successfully their professional rights and integrity against external influence. The Special Panel that developed the "Taylor Report", after having witnessed the defeats of the two previous attempts, was aware of the necessity of cleanly defining the appropriate roles of students and faculty and acted accordingly. Their efforts clearly resulted in a compromise which success­ fully resolved these differences. Like most compromises the result was not entirely satisfactory to either the faculty or the students, but it did provide a structure within which the University was able to function more representatively. While this structure provides for greater diversity of input in academic decision-making, it does not guarantee any difference in output which to a large degree depends upon attitudes and the willingness to listen and to attempt to understand on the part of all the participants. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction In the initial chapter of this study, there appeared a number of introductory statements concerning purpose, general design, methodology, and questions to be answered. The present chapter will elaborate on these statements by emphasizing the various procedures used in the collection, the analysis, and the discussion of the data. This infor­ mation obtained from the questionnaire and from the inter­ views will be dealt with, in such a way, using appro­ priate statistical measures, that the conclusions and recommendations that follow will have a firm foundation. The interview data will be used to supplement the ques­ tionnaire data. Collection of the Data As noted in Chapter I, the questionnaire (Appendix C ) , the basic source of data for this investigation, contains 99 forced choice Likert style items. These items were designed to measure the attitudes of the 134- individuals who were members of the Academic Council at Michigan State University during the Fall and Winter terms of the 111 112 1972-73 academic year. The questionnaire was composed of four basic scales which included the following: 1. Academic Freedom (25 items) (Items 23, 25, 28, 33, 34, 35, 59, 68, 70, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 9 0 , 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99) 2. Administrative Efficiency (22 items) (Items 5, 14, 15, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, 64, 67, 69) 3. Community Cohesion (19 items) (Items 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 1 3 , 16, 17, 22, 36, 43, 44, 45, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79) 4. Educational Value (10 items) (Items 2, 7, 8, 9, 39, 42, 47, 65, 66, 82) In addition, 23 items concerning the general issue of student participation in academic governance, and the specific issues concerning student participation at the Academic Council level at Michigan State University were included in the final draft of the instrument. These items included elements of either none or more than one of the four scales. They were included for the purpose of indicating general attitudes of the Academic Council concerning student participation in academic governance. The final draft of the questionnaire was completed in early February, 1973, following a pilot study and extensive consultations with authorities in both survey research and in the functioning of the Michigan State University Academic Council. One significant addition to the basic research format which developed at this time, was an open-ended invitation for any comments concerning 113 student participation in the Academic Council deliberations at Michigan State University. These comments, along with the interview data will be presented as supplementary material. The questionnaire, along with the cover letter, (Appendix A), return envelope, and separate answer sheet was delivered by hand to the departmental mail boxes or to the secretaries of all of the faculty and administrative members of the Academic Council with campus offices. In addition, questionnaires, cover letters, and answer sheets were personally delivered to mail boxes in the reception areas of residence halls, fraternities, and sororities for completion by student members of the Academic Council. Those student members of the Academic Council living in off-campus housing received questionnaires, cover letters, and answer sheets through the U.S. Mail. The population under investigation consisted of 134individuals who were voting members of the 1972-73 Academic Council of Michigan State University. To be considered for the purposes of this study, each individual member had to have served on the Academic Council during the Fall and Winter terms of the 1972-73 academic year. The individual breakdown in terms of broad academic affilia­ tion of all members is as follows: 114TABLE 1 Academic Affiliation of the 1972-73 Members of the Michigan State University Academic Council Affiliation n Liberal Arts Natural Science Non-affiliates (Administrators) Social and Behavioral Science Total 20 51 15 48 134 Viewing the 1972-73 Academic Council in terms of each member's academic status, one finds the following di stribution: TABLE 2 Academic Status of the 1972-73 Members of the Michigan State University Academic Council Academic Status n Admini strators Faculty Long term Short term Students Graduat e Undergraduate Total 31 67 19 48 36 11 134 The initial distribution of the instrument was under­ taken on Wednesday, February 14, 1973, and was completed the following day. By Wednesday, February 28, two days after the deadline stated in the cover letter, a total of 73 returned completed questionnaires, or 55 percent of the total number delivered had been received. An immediate follow-up was delayed because of the approach of Winter 115 term final examinations the week of March 12-16, 1973, and the following one week vacation period. On March 28, and March 29, 1973, a second letter (Appendix B) describing the research and asking for cooperation was personally distributed with a duplicate set of materials to those members of the Academic Council who had not responded to the first attempt at data collection. Two weeks later, an additional eight completed questionnaires were received bringing the useable return to 79 ot 60.5 percent of the population. During the next two weeks, most of the remaining non-responding members of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council were personally contacted by telephone. In several cases, considerable discussion concerning the scope and signifi­ cance of the study led to the return of additional data. These efforts resulted in the collection of 12 additional completed questionnaires, raising the overall rate of return to 69-5 percent of the population. The first statistical operation took place in order to determine whether or not there was a significant difference among those Academic Council members who res­ ponded immediately (Wave 1), those who responded after receiving the follow-up letter (Wave 2), and those who responsed following the telephone request (Wave 3). If a difference was found among these three groups, this dif­ ference might be a source of contamination resulting from 116 a differential procedure used to obtain data from the members of the Academic Council* The actual calculations were accomplished using the M.S.U. CDC 6500 computing system and Finn's prepared program for analysis of variance. (57) The frequencies, means, and standard deviations for each of the waves on each of the scales are presented on the following tables. TABLE 5 Observed Cell Means for the Three Waves of Respondents on the Four Scales Freq- Academic Administrative Group uency Freedom Efficiency Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 73 8 12 2.-4-6 2.69 2.59 2.4-7 2.22 2.4-9 Community Educational Cohesion Value_ 2.29 2.22 2.4-9 2.28 2.12 2.4-0 TABLE 4Observed Cell Standard Deviations for the Three Waves of Respondents on the Four Scales Freq- Academic Administrative Community Educational Group uency Freedom___ Efficiency_____ Cohesion Value_ Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 73 8 12 .4-5 .53 .56 -32 .22 .35 .33 .52 -4-5 -31 .4^3 -38 Using this data, the analysis of variance operations for differences in population means were performed. results are recorded in the following table: The 117 TABLE 5 ANOVA Comparison of Populations for the Three Waves of Respondents on the Pour Scales Kean Square Between Variable A.C* Free. A.B. Eff. Comm. Cohsn Ed. Value .2508 .0258 .2531 .1824 D.F. Between=2 Univariate F P less than 1.1092 .2580 1.9262 1.6497 D.F. Within=90 .3343 .7732 .1517 -1979 When alpha was set at .05, it was determined that there were no significant differences among the three waves of respondents on any of the four scales. In addition, a multivariate test was performed resulting in an F ratio of 1.0228. When the values for the degrees of freedom are 8 and 174-* the probability of a difference in means was found to be .4207, clearly beyond the alpha value of .05. The conclusion to be drawn is that at the .05 level, there is no difference among the three waves on ejiy of the four scales, or on the four scales taken together. The assumption can be made that there were no differential treatment effects and that the three waves of respondents can be grouped together for analysis. Kost of the 46 Academic Council members who chose not to respond to the questionnaire eventually communi­ cated one or more reasons for their non-response. The most common explanation encountered was a lack of time. Hany of the Council members also expressed feelings to the effect that many of the items were overly vague and that 118 no one response could adequately account for the vast individual differences of Academic Council subgroups. Another fairly common criticism concerned the lack of a neutral or undecided response alternative to the questionnaire items. These people refused to respond because they felt that many of the individual items called for responses based on non-ob.jective feelings. This type of criticism was particularly distressing because it was felt that the cover letter and the instruc­ tions on the instrument clearly expressed the purpose of the research as one of studying the attitudes of the members of the Academic Council with respect to student participation on that body. The 93 members of the Academic Council that did respond to the instrument were classified into subgroups. In terms of broad academic affiliation, the sample numbers, and the percentages of the respective groups they represent are as follows: TABLE 6 Academic Affiliation of the Responding Members of the 1972-73 Academic Council of Michigan State University % of the Croup in the Sample Academic Affiliation n Liberal Arts Natural Science Non-Applicable Social and Behavioral Science Total 17 38 7 85% 75% 4-7% JUk 93 6£% 69-5% 119 The 93 respondents were then classified according to their status in the university. The numbers for each status group and the percentages of the sub-population are as follows: TABLE 7 Academic Status of the Responding Members of the 1972-73 Michigan State University Academic Council Academic Status n Adminlstrators Faculty Long Term Short Term Students Graduate Undergraduat e Total 20 53 % of the Group in the Sample 17 36 20 __ 93 416 64-. 5% 79% 89.5% 75% 55.5% 36.5% 64- % 69-5% Prior to proceeding with the analysis of the data, the representativeness of the sample had to be deter­ mined. A random sampling produced 12 names of Academic Council members who had not responded to the questionnaire. These six administrators, three faculty, and three students were interviewed. During the course of these interviews, responses were gathered on 20 of the 99 items in the questionnaire. These questions were selected on the basis of their representativeness of the entire questionnaire and included items from each of the four scales, as well as some dealing with general attitudes. The data on the 20 items obtained from these interviews were then compared with the data from the returned questionnaires using the 120 Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y CDC 6500 computer system and a prepared program designed to calculate multivariate analysis of variance, (57) The resulting F-Ratio for the multivariate test of equality of mean vectors was found to he 1.224-7- When the values for the degrees of freedom are 20 and 84-, the probability of a difference between questionnaire res­ pondents and non-respondents was found to be .2557- At the .05 level, the conclusion can be drawn that there is no significant difference between the questionnaire res­ pondents and the non-respondents. The data from the instrument was therefore considered to be unbiased and representative of the entire Council. In addition to these 20 items, the interview pro­ cedure resulted in additional important information. The semi-structured interview procedure encouraged the Council members to elaborate on their responses, producing in many cases, additional insights. This information is presented along with the discussion of the individual items. An estimate of the reliability was calculated on each of the scales for the administrative, faculty, and student component groups using Hoyt's formula. (168) The preliminary computations of the various mean squares were accomplished using the Jennrich program. (86) The results of these calculations are presented in the following table. 121 TABLE 8 Hoyt's Reliability Estimates for the Student, Faculty, and Administrative Components of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council on Each of the Four Scales Group Administrators Faculty Students Administrators Faculty Students Administrators Faculty Students Administrators Faculty Students Scale Hoyt's Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficient Academic Freedom Academic Freedom Academic Freedom Administrative Efficiency Administrative Efficiency Administrative Efficiency Community Cohesion Community Cohesion Community Cohesion Educational Value Educational Value Educational Value .74 .81 .91 .92 .90 .91 .65 -78 .87 .85 .66 .74 Beginning with the Academic Freedom scale, the res­ ponses of the various component groups were tested for equality of means on the M.S.U. CDC computer system. The selected statistical technique was a one-way analysis of variance and the computations were accomplished using an option in the px^epared Fortran IV program entitled “Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariance-Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance." (57) This procedure required the adjustment of scores on some items so that low scores and low means consistently indicate a positive relationship between the M.S.TJ. Academic Council student participation and academic freedom. In addition, mean scores for each individual on each of the four scales were calculated as required for the computer program. 122 Because the analysis of variance technique indicates only that a difference exists somewhere among the groups, these differences had to be further tested in order to locate the exact source of the differences. For example, while the analysis of variance technique indicates a difference existing somewhere among administrators, students, and faculty on the Academic Freedom scale, it does not give any conclusive information concerning whether students differ from faculty, whether students differ from administrators, or whether students differ from both faculty and administrators. The exact location of these differences was found by using the Scheffe' post hoc technique prepared Fortran IV program as described by Glendening. (67) When the dif­ ferences on each of the scales were isolated in two or more of the component groups, the group means for each item in the scale were compared descriptively in order to ascertain those items contributing to differences in attitude. Following this procedure, the views of the entire Academic Council were descriptively considered for each scale along with the additional information acquired through the interviews. Academic Freedom Scale The 25 items dealing with the question of the impact of student participation on academic freedom consist of seven general items followed by nine statements describing 123 specific academic administrative activities. Each of these statements were to he considered first in terms of undergraduate student involvement and secondly, in terms of graduate student involvement, Inter-Group Comparisons The first step in the analysis of the data was a determination of differences among groups within the Academic Council, A separate one-way analysis of variance was performed for each of the following group comparisons. 1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 6 • 7- Administrators vs. faculty, vs. students. Undergraduate students vs. graduate students. Long-term faculty vs. short-term faculty. Council members affiliated with liberal arts disciplines vs. Council members affiliated with natural science disciplines, vs. Council members affiliated with social science discip­ lines, vs. Council members not affiliated with an academic discipline. Liberal arts administrators vs. natural science administrators, vs. social science administrators, vs. non-affiliated administrators. T,7'hnr,r>l U M O , nX▼ » + ■ft V U U A. u v f-tr tro ¥ •— > * nn U A 1 O ftfi on f»o w — M W vs. social science faculty. Liberal arts students vs. natural science students, vs. social science students. Each of these comparisons were accomplished using the M.S.U. CDC 6300 computing system and the prepared Finn program for analysis of variance. (57) The first comparison on the Academic Freedom scale concerned the administrative, faculty, and student com­ ponent groups. The analysis of variance calculation requires a preliminary calculation of sample means and +:v y 124 standard deviations. The results or these preliminary calculations are presented in the following table: TABLE 9 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Academic Freedom Scale Group n Administrators Faculty Students Mean Standard Deviation 2.57 2.60 2.17 -37 .45 .52 20 55 20 Using this information, the analysis of variance operation was calculated for the purpose of determining whether or not a statistically significant difference at the .05 level exists among the administrators, faculty, and students on the Academic Freedom scale. The results of these calculations are presented in the following table: TABLE 10 ANOVA Oomp&rison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Academic Freedom Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 90 .15805 .20010 F 6.8796 P less than Significance .0017 Yes The conclusion drawn from these calculations is that there is a significant difference at the .05 level among students, faculty, and administrators with respect to the Academic Freedom scale. After examining the table 125 containing "the administrative, faculty, and student group means, the following hypotheses were developed for addi­ tional testing using the Scheffe* post hoc procedures, 1. There is no difference between the students and the administrators on the Academic Freedom Scale. (M$ - ) o 2. There is no difference between the students and the faculty on the Academic Freedom scale. (■AAf — AAft s O ) 5. There is no difference between the students and the combined group of administrators and faculty on the Academic Freedom scale. (M s 0) Each of these hypotheses were tested in the null form at the .05 level using the Scheffe' post hoc technique. (5) The results are presented in the following table: TABLE 11 Scheffe' Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Academic Freedom Scale A uJ. I jl u J. 1A. M.S-M* .4000 AAs-M-fi .4500 jLL*-(M a + M *} -4150 0~ — llJU 1jL 95% Confidence Ii*terval Surrounding .1418 .0472 < .1176 .1572 < .1162 .1257 Vk*- .7528 .7228 .7045 Signi­ ficant Yes Yes Yes The results indicate that at the .05 level, there is a significant difference between students and administrators, between students and faculty, and between students and the combined group of faculty and administrators. 126 Furthermore, the differences in the group sample means indicate that the student members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council were significantly less suspi­ cious of the impact of Council student involvement on academic freedom than were the faculty representatives, the administrative representatives, and the combined group of administrative and faculty representatives. The graduate and undergraduate student representa­ tives to the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council were then compared with regard to their responses to the items in the Academic Freedom scale. The frequencies, means, and standard deviations are recorded in the following table. TABLE 12 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Academic Freedom Scale Group n Mean Undergraduate Students Graduate Students 14 6 Standard Deviation 2.32 1.82 .52 .33 The calculation of the one-way ANOVA for equality of population means yielded the following data: TABLE 13 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate Students, and Graduate Students on the Academic Freedom Scale Source of Mean P less Variation DF Square F than Significance Between groups Within groups 1 18 1.0560 .2245 4.7039 .0438 Yes 127 j The results of this test provide statistically significant evidence that there is a difference between undergraduate and graduate members of the 1972-73 M.S.U, Academic Council with respect to their responses to the items on the Academic Freedom scale. This difference does not require the Scheffe' procedure since only two groups were being compared. There exists no statistically significant possibility that differences found in the analysis of variance test could occur anywhere but within these two groups. The comparative mean scores found in Table 12 indicate that the mean for undergraduate repre­ sentatives was 2.32 while the graduate representatives had a mean of 1.82. The conclusion to be reached from this data is that the graduate students' attitudes toward the Academic Freedom scale and Academic Council student participation were more positive than their undergraduate student counterparts. The magnitude and direction of the difference between the mean scores of the graduate and undergraduate student representatives was somewhat unex­ pected. Because graduate students have completed under­ graduate programs and are approaching educational back­ grounds similar to those of faculty members, it was expected that the attitudes of graduate students would fall on the continuum between the undergraduates and the faculty. The next comparison on the Academic Freedom scale took place between the long-term faculty and the short­ 128 term faculty- It was felt that the experience of compro­ mise which took place among the long-term faculty repre­ sentatives, might make a difference in their response. The calculation of sample means and standard deviations yielded the following results: TABLE 14Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Long and Short-Term Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale Group n Mean Long-term Faculty Short-term Faculty 17 36 2.66 2.57 Standard Deviation .51 -4-2 The calculation of the one-way analysis of variance for equality of population means resulted in the following table: TABLE 15 ANOVA Comparison of Long and Short-Term Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF 1 51 Mean Square .1267 .1811 F -6995 P less than .4-072 Significance No The difference found between these samples cannot therefore be inferred to the populations on the Academic Council. The next comparison concerned all members of the 1972* 73 M.S.U. Academic Council, classified according to their academic affiliation. The frequencies, means, and stan­ dard deviations for each of these groups are presented in the following table: 129 TABLE 16 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Academic Freedom Scale Group Frequency Mean Standard Deviation 17 38 7 31 2.69 2.50 2.642.36 .57 .4-6 .4-7 .4-3 Liberal Arts Affiliates Natural Science Affiliates Non-Affiliates Social Science Affiliates The one-way analysis of variance test for equality of population means was then undertaken. The results of these calculations are summarized in the following table: TABLE 17 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Academic Freedom Scale Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF Mean Square F_ 2 89 .4-326 .2178 .1961 P less than .14-58 Significance No The differences found among the samples of the four affiliated groups are therefore not statistically signifi­ cant at the .05 level, and cannot be inferred to their respective populations. The administrative representatives to the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council were next classified according to their broad academic affiliation and compared with respect to their responses on the Academic Freedom scale. The group means, frequencies, and standard deviations for 130 each of the affiliated administrative groups are presented in the following table. TABLE 18 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Academic Freedom Scale Group Frequency Mean Standard Deviation 2 6 7 5 2.64 2.43 2.64 2.61 -17 .44 .47 .18 Liberal Arts Administrators Natural Science Administrators Non-Affiliated Administrators Social Science Administrators This information was then incorporated into the analysis of variance procedure for testing the equality of population means. The results of that test are pre­ sented in the following table. TABLE 19 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Academic Freedom Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 16 .0783 .1523 F -5157 P less than .6067 Significance No The one-way analysis of variance test for equality of means shows no significant difference among liberal arts administrators, natural science administrators, non­ affiliated administrators, and social science administra­ tors on the Academic Freedom scale. The next inter-group test for equality of population means was to he carried out among the various faculty groups on the 1972-73 Academic Council affiliated with the liberal arts, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. The frequencies, means, and standard deviations for each of these three groups were found. They appear in the following table. TABLE 20 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for the liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale Group Mean Liberal Arts Faculty Natural Science Faculty Social Science Faculty 11 23 19 Standard Deviation 2.86 2.63 2.40 47 42 40 This information was then incorporated into the analysis of variance test for equality of means. The results of this test are summarized in the following table. TABLE 21 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Between Groups Within Groups 2 .7631 4.3020 50 .1774 P less than .0189 Significance Yes The results of this test provide statistically significant evidence that there is a difference at the .05 level among the three faculty groups on the Academic 132 Freedom scale- Following the examination of group means presented in Table 20, a number of hypotheses were devel­ oped for further testing using the Scheffe' post hoc procedures. These hypotheses to be tested included the following: 1. There is no difference between the liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives. e* ■*=■O ) 2. There is no difference between the liberal arts and social science faculty representatives. /s - 3. 9t F - O There is no difference between the natural science and social science faculty representatives. {/ULa/?p - AA.t'sft •=O 4. ) There is no difference between the liberal arts faculty representatives and the combined groups of natural science and social science faculty representatives. , (yCtAfir - 5. ) o) JL There is no difference between the combined group of liberal and natural science faculty representatives and the social science faculty representatives. ( O) Each of these hypotheses were tested using the Scheffe1 post hoc procedures. The results of this testing are presented in Table 22. The results indicate that statistically significant differences exist between the Academic Council represen­ tatives of the liberal arts faculty and the social science faculty. Significant differences were also detected bet­ ween the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives and the social science 133 TABLE 22 Scheffe' Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Academic Freedom Scale AA 95% Confidence Inter­ Signi­ ficance val Surrounding C/A*,’ Vi 2300 4600 2500 3450 3450 .1544 .1596 .1306 .1428 .1237 faculty representatives. -.1596 < ^ .0574 < < .6196 < .8626 -.0995 < < .5595 -.0153 < V'-t .7053 .0529 ^ W < .6571 No Yes No No Yes In each case, the sample mean score of the social science faculty representatives was lower, and therefore more positive, than the mean of the group to which it was compared. The final group comparison on the Academic Freedom scale took place among the students affiliated with the liberal arts, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. The group frequencies, means, and standard deviations are presented in the following table. TABLE 23 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Academic Freedom Scale Group Liberal Arts Students Natural Science Students Social Science Students Frequency 4 9 7 Mean 2.22 2.22 2.08 Standard Deviation .75 .47 .52 134Using this data, the analysis of variance test was per­ formed. The results of that test show that there is no significant difference among the student groups when classified according to academic affiliation. TABLE 24ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Academic Freedom Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 17 .04-05 .2951 F .1372 P less than .8728 Significance No Discussion of Individual Items When the individual items that comprise the Academic Freedom scale are examined, it becomes clear that most of the differences found in the analyses of variance occurred in the section dealing with specific student representation on selected decision-making bodies. The first group of items to be considered dealt with academic freedom and the perceptions of the 1972-75 Academic Council members concerning the outcomes of the one year M.S.U. experiment in student participation. There appears to be little, if any,difference among the Academic Council groups with regard to student participation as a means of improving the appraisals of educational practices (Item 23)- In all cases, comparison of the group means showed little deviation from 2 .5 0 0 , the mid­ point of the continuum ranging from strong agreement to 135 strong disagreement. Further, each group was approximately equally divided in terms of the numbers of respondents agreeing and disagreeing with the statement. Item 34 expressed the thought that most students on the Academic Council were more interested in improving programs than in determining what was to be taught. The mean score of the entire Council was 2.317* indicating a moderate degree of agreement. Comparison of distributions of scores for the entire Council and for the groups found to be different showed that for each group, approximately two individuals agreed with the wording of the item for each person who disagreed. The same general conclusion can be drawn concerning item 35 for the Academic Council as a whole. Slightly more than two-thirds of all of the Academic Council members either agreed or strongly agreed that the student members understood the value of promoting and protecting opportunities for the learning and d i s c o v e r y of truth. While administrators, faculty, and students, graduate students as well as undergraduate students, approximated this same distribution and the mean score of 2.241, a deviation appears among liberal arts faculty, natural science faculty, and social science faculty. The mean score for the liberal arts faculty on this item was 2.636 as compared to 2.238 and 2.056 for the natural science faculty and social science faculty respectively. In terms 136 I of distribution, more than 50 percent of the liberal arts faculty disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the student members understand the value of promoting and protecting opportunities for the learning and discovery of truth. Less than 25 percent of both the natural science faculty and the social science faculty responded in this matter. This item appears to have con­ tributed to the differences among faculty groups discovered and located by the ANOVA and Scheffe' Techniques. One administrative representative to the Academic Council summarized the majority feeling of the Council by stating that, "The Academic Council student representatives are an exceptional group of young people. They have been sophisticated and responsible, and in many cases, they have done their homework better than the faculty." Moderate agreement was observed among the Academic Council component groups regarding item 33 which stated that students usually tend to vote in collective blocks. More than 75 percent of the Academic Council disagreed or disagreed strongly leading to the conclusion that students did not usually vote together. As might be expected, the students expressed disagreement or strong disagreement slightly more often than did faculty and ad­ ministrators. The mean scores for administrators, faculty, and students were 2.850, 3*038, and 3-105 respectively. The mean for the graduate students (3-333) was moderately higher than that of the undergraduate students (3*000). 157 The mean for the social science faculty (3.263) was also moderately high when compared to that of the liberal arts faculty (2.909) and to that of the natural science faculty (2.913)- It should be noted, however, that the mode for each of these differing component groups was the same, the "3" or "disagree" response. In a comment returned with the completed instrument, a student representative remarked that, "Students tend to divide on issues much in the same way as the faculty— according to their own specific interests and philosophies rather than age groups or other considerations." Another student representative observed that, "The students seem to get along better with the non-student members of the Academic Council than with themselves. There seems to be distinct factions among the student representatives." A wide majority of the Academic Council members disagreed or disagreed strongly with items suggesting that further increases in student participation would threaten the academic freedom of the faculty (Item 59) and that the prestige of the faculty had been lowered because of student participation (Item 25)The mean scores of all responding Academic Council members was 2.809 for Item 59 and 3-187 for Item 25- On both of these items a substantial majority of all respon­ ding Academic Council members indicated disagreement or strong disagreement, indicating that according to the 138 Council members, neither the faculty's prestige was diminished by the present plan, nor would its academic freedom be threatened by incorporating greater numbers of students on the Academic Council. Moderate differences among the faculty affiliated with different academic fields occurred with respect to the relationship between the perceived threat to the faculty's academic freedom and further increases in Acad­ emic Council student participation. The natural science and social science faculty groups exhibited mean scores on Item 39 (2.864 and 2.706 respectively) greater than 2.500, the midpoint between agreement and disagreement, therefore indicating general disagreement with the wording of the item. The liberal arts faculty had a mean score of 2.455 on this item indicating slight differences in attitude with the other two faculty groups which may have contributed to the differences located by the ANOVA and Scheffe'' operations. More than 50 percent of each of these three faculty groups responded with a "3" or "dis­ agree" response. There was considerable difference between the respon­ ses of these same faculty groups concerning Item 25 which suggested that Academic Council student participation had lowered the prestige of the faculty. The mean score for the liberal arts faculty group was 2.700 as compared to 2.913 for the natural science faculty group and 3*611 for the social science faculty group. While all three faculty 139 groups had 73 percent or more disagree or strongly dis­ agree responses, 67 percent of the social science faculty strongly disagreed with the item as compared with 17 percent and 0 percent for the natural science faculty and the liberal arts faculty respectively. This item appears to contribute substantially to the difference found between social science faculty and the combined liberal arts faculty and natural science faculty group discovered by the ANOVA and the Scheffe* procedures. These two items (No. 25 and 59) also appeared to contribute to the difference found between graduate students and undergraduates who are members of the Academic Council. The mean scores for the graduate student members of the Council were 3-333 and 5-500 for Items 25 and 59 •, as compared to the corresponding undergraduate mean scores of 5-118 and 5-15/*-« These scores illustrate the trend that indicates that graduate students are consistently more favorable than undergraduates toward Academic Council student participation and its impact on academic freedom. While the mean scores and the distributions of scores for administrators, faculty, and students (3 -3 5 0 , 3-118, and 5*200) showed little difference with regard to Item 25* the high scores appear to indicate that the prevailing attitude among Academic Council members is that the pres­ tige of the faculty has not been significantly decreased by Academic Council student participation. The conclusion 140 that student participation has not adversely affected the faculty's academic freedom from the Academic Council's point of view, can also be drawn after examining the overall mean score of 2.809 on Item 59 and the overall mode of 5. Differences which appear to contribute to the discrepancies discovered by the analysis of variance and located by the Scheffe* technique emerged among the admin­ istrative, faculty, and student component groups. The respective means for each of these three groups are as follows: Administrators, 2.600, faculty, 2.720, and students, 5*265. An examination of the distributions for these groups reveals that 51*6 percent of the students strongly disagreed with the wording of the item as compared to 20 percent of the administrators and 12 percent of the faculty. At the other end of the continuum, only 5.2 percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that Academic Council student participation threatened the academic freedom of the faculty. In contrast, 55 percent of the administrators and 32 percent of the faculty agreed with the item. These discrepancies in attitudes appear to contribute to the differences between students and administrators, between students and faculty, and between students and the combined group of adminis­ trators and faculty. The next series of items in the Academic Freedom scale to be considered for purposes of discussion consisted 141 of nine items dealing with curriculum and personnel matters. Beginning with Items 96 and 97» two items designed to measure attitudes with regard to (96) under­ graduates and (97) graduate student participation in matters pertaining to the development of procedures for evaluating faculty teaching effectiveness, it was found that the majority of the Academic Council generally agreed that this was a proper matter of student concern. Approximately one-third of the responding Academic Council members felt that both undergraduates and graduates should be strongly involved, i.e., comprising from one-third to one-half of the membership of the decision-making body, in matters of this type. Approximately another one-third felt that both graduate and undergraduate students should be moderately involved as active participants with voting privileges, but comprising less than one-third of the membership of the decision-making body. Approximately one-fourth of the Council felt that the proper role of both graduate and. undergraduate students should be of an advisory nature while 3-3 percent of the Council felt that students should be excluded from this activity. The response of the student members of the Council indicated that they held the most positive attitudes regarding student participation in the development of procedures for the evaluation of faculty teaching effec­ tiveness. The mean score of the students on Items 96 and 97 were 1.379 and 1.4-74, referring to undergraduate and 14-2 graduate student participation respectively. The compara­ tive group means for the administrative representatives were found to he 2.050 for undergraduates and 2.100 for graduates. The faculty representatives recorded means of 2.059 for undergraduates and 2.039 for graduate students. In both of these cases, moderate differences occurred between students and administrators, and between students and faculty, which appear to contribute to the differences found in the ANOVA and Scheffe' procedures. The distributions for these two items show that 73*7 percent of the students favor strong undergraduate involve­ ment in developing procedures for evaluating teaching performance as compared to 25-5 percent and 35 percent for faculty and administrators. In terms of graduate student involvement in this same area, 68.4- percent of the students favored strong graduate student involvement as compared to 35 percent and 25*5 percent of the adminis­ trators and faculty respectively. while none of uhe student members of the Council favored moderate involve­ ment for undergraduates in this area, 4-7.1 percent of the faculty and 25 percent of the administrators felt that this was the appropriate student role. These figures substantiate important differences in attitudes, mentioned earlier in terms of group means, among students, faculty, and administrators. 143 An examination or the mean scores of the graduate and undergraduate student members of the Academic Council show that on these items, graduate students favored a considerably greater student role than did undergraduate students. The mean score for the responding Academic Council undergraduate representatives on these two items were 1.846 and 1.474, while the Academic Council graduate representatives unanimously indicated, with a mean score of 1.000, that both undergraduates and graduates should play a strong role in developing faculty teaching evalua­ tion procedures. Examination of the group means and response distribu­ tions with regard to the proper role of students in developing procedures for the evaluation of teaching effectiveness revealed little appreciable difference among the faculty representatives when grouped according to academic affiliation. The liberal arts faculty mean scores of 2.200 on both of these items exceeded those of the natural science faculty (2.091 for undergraduates and 2.045 for graduates) and the social science faculty (1.947 and 1.94-7)- The differences among these groups were relatively small, but consistent with the ANOVA difference. The distributions of scores on these two items indicate that the largest number of respondents from all three groups felt that a moderate involvement of students, i.e., less than one-third of the voting membership, was the appropriate role for both graduates and undergraduates. With regard to undergraduate and graduate student involvement in course content and curricular decisions (Items 84- and 85), the Academic Council generally feels that students should be voting members on bodies dealing with these issues. The mean scores of the Academic Council with regard to undergraduate and graduate student involve­ ment were 2.255 and 2.088. There were 17 members or 18.7 percent of the Academic Council who felt that under­ graduates should play a strong role in the making of this type of decision as compared to 20 members or 22 percent, the corresponding figure for graduate students. For both undergraduates and graduates, the largest percentage of Academic Council members felt that moderate involvement, or less than one-third of the voting seats should be filled by students. The respective percentages of Council res­ ponses favoring moderate involvement for undergraduates and graduate students were found to be 44-.0 percent and 4-9.5 percent. For both undergraduate and graduate students, less than one-third of the Academic Council advocated advisory participation and less than 10 percent felt that students should not be involved in curricular deci sion-making• With respect to the three differences on the Academic Freedom scale found among component Academic Council 145 groups by the analysis of variance, comparison of mean scores found considerable differences among the responses of students, faculty, and administrators, and also among the liberal arts, natural science, and social science faculty groups. The student members of the Academic Council again advocated a much wider student role in curricular decision­ making than did faculty and administrators. The mean response of the student Academic Council representatives was found to be 1.737 with respect to undergraduate invol­ vement and 1*526 with respect to graduate student involve­ ment. The most popular response alternative for both undergraduate and graduate Council members (Items 84 and 85) was "1" or "strong involvement." In comparison, the faculty members had mean scores of 2.404 and 2.250 with respect to undergraduate and graduate student involvement. Corresponding means for administrators were 2.350 and 2.200. The faculty and administrators were in agreement to the degree that the most popular response for both groups was "2", advocating a moderate degree of student participation for both graduate and undergraduate students in these matters. These differences in attitude appear to contri­ bute to the discrepancies as confirmed by the Scheffe' results between the students and the faculty, between the students and the administrators, and between students and the faculty and administrators combined. 146 A moderate degree of difference appeared between graduate and undergraduate students with respect to the role of graduate students in curricular decision-making matters. The mean score of the graduate students on Item 85 was 1.167 as compared to 1.692 for the under­ graduates. With respect to undergraduate student partici­ pation, the difference in mean scores was not as large. The mean of the graduate student responses was 1.500 as compared to 1.846 for the undergraduates. The percentages of graduate and undergraduate student representatives advocating a strong role for undergraduates were 50.0 percent and 46.2 percent respectively. The corresponding figures for graduate student involvement were 83*5 percent and 53*8 percent respectively. The social science faculty group continued to be more amenable to student participation than the liberal arts and natural science faculties. The differences in means was moderate for undergraduate involvement and minimal for graduate student involvement. The mean scores for the liberal arts faculty and the natural science faculty were 2.636 and 2.500 with regard to undergraduate student involvement as compared to 2.158 for the social science faculty. The social science faculty had a mean response of 2.053 with regard to graduate student involvement in curricular matters. This was con­ siderably lower and therefore more favorable than the liberal arts and natural science faculties mean scores 147 of 2.455 and 2.518. In each case, the mean response to Item 85 was lower and hence more favorable to graduate student involvement in curricular decision-making. An examination of the modes of these three faculty groups shows that 44.5 percent of the liberal arts faculty, 50 percent of the natural science faculty, and 52.6 percent of the social science faculty feel that a moderate voice, or less than one-third of the total votes is most appro­ priate for the graduate student role in curricular matters. The distribution for undergraduate student involvement indicates that 36.4 percent of the liberal arts faculty favor moderate involvement and that another 36.4 percent favor advisory involvement. The natural science faculty also favor a moderate and an advisory role with equal frequency for undergraduates. case was 40.9 percent. The percentages in each Among the social science faculty, 42.1 percent favored a moderate undergraduate role and another 36 =8 percent favored. °r advisory role. The responses of the Academic Council with respect to student involvement in the curricular and personnel decisions are consistent with the response on Item 28 which asked the respondents to indicate their degree of agreement with the statement that the student members of the Academic Council have important insights and contribu­ tions to make to decisions involving faculty teaching competence. The mean score of the Academic Council on 14-8 this item was 2.318, indicating a slightly positive overall attitude. There were nine Council members or 10.2 percent who strongly agreed with the wording of the item and 4-7 or 53.4- percent who agreed. Expressing negative attitudes were 27 members of the Council or 30.7 percent who dis­ agreed and five or 5-7 percent who strongly disagreed. A comparison of the mean scores of students, faculty, and administrators reveals that the students responded considerably more positively than the faculty but only slightly more positively than did the administrators. The mean for the student members of the Council was 1.94-7 as compared with 2.529 for the faculty and 2.111 for the administrators. Despite the difference in mean scores, the most popular response for each of the groups of students, faculty, and administrators was a "2" or "agree" response. The percentages of Academic Council members agreeing with this item are 66.7 percent for the adminisbrators, 4-7-1 percent for the faculty, and 57*9 percent for the students. The difference between students and faculty is most apparent in the distributions of strongly agree and disagree responses. There were 26.3 percent of the students who strongly agreed that students had impor­ tant insights to contribute to teaching competence decisions while only two members or 3-9 percent of the faculty responded in this manner. At the other end of the con­ tinuum, 41.2 percent of the faculty disagreed with the item as compared to only 10.5 percent of the students. 149 A substantial portion of the differences between students and facility was contributed by the graduate student members of the Academic Council. Of the six res­ ponding graduate students, three or 90 percent strongly agreed and the other three (50 percent) agreed. In comparison, 15-4 percent of the undergraduates strongly agreed with the item, 61.5 percent agreed, 15-4 percent disagreed, and 7-7 percent strongly disagreed. These differences were reflected in the mean scores of the two student groups. The undergraduate mean of 2.154 was considerably higher than the 1.500 for graduate students. Were it not for the relatively positive attitudes of the social science faculty on this item, the differences between students and faculty might have been even greater. The social science faculty had a mean score of 2.211 as compared with 2.700 for the liberal arts faculty and 2.727 for the natural science faculty. This inter-faculty difference is primarily reflected in the disagree side of the continuum where 60 percent of the liberal arts faculty and 59-1 percent of the natural science faculty either disagreed or strongly disagreed as compared with only 51-6 percent of the social science faculty. Although the Academic Council generally felt that students had important insights to contribute to decisions involving the teaching competence of faculty members, they did not generally approve of granting voting privileges 150 to students when guidelines f*or hiring and promoting faculty are being established or revised. The mean response of the entire Academic Council was 2.850 with respect to undergraduate student representatives and 2.74-7 with respect to graduate student representatives. These means are reflected in the fact that 70.5 percent of the Academic Council members felt that student representatives should not be voting participants in decisions of this type. This 70.5 percent breaks down to 54-.9 percent who felt that undergraduate students should be limited to an advisory role and 15-4- percent who felt that undergraduate students should not be involved in any way. The corres­ ponding percentages for graduate student involvement in this area were 58.2 percent and 12.1 percent respectively. As might be expected, the mean score for students of 2.158 was considerably lower and hence more favorable toward student involvement in this area than the mean of either the faculty (2.981) or the administrators (2.850). With regard to graduate student involvement, the students continued to hold the most positive attitude as indicated by their mean of 2.265- In comparison, the faculty mean was found to be 2.962 and the administrative mean was found to be 2.650. The distribution of responses shows that 51-6 percent of the student representatives advocate strong involvement by undergraduates and 26.5 percent advocate strong involvement by graduates in developing 151 guidelines for hiring and promoting facility. The compara­ tive percentages for faculty and administrators are 1.2 percent and zero percent for undergraduates and 1.9 percent and five percent for graduate students. The proper undergraduate student role in this area according to 55 percent of the administrators and 65*4- percent of the faculty was purely advisory, but only 26.3 percent of the students shared this attitude. In terms of graduate student involvement, 60 percent of the administrators, 63-5 percent of the faculty, and 42.1 percent of the students agreed that an advisory role was most appropriate. Neither the mean differences between graduate and undergraduate students, nor the mean differences among liberal arts faculty, natural science faculty, and social science faculty were as large as on some of the previous items, but they were consistent with the Scheffe* findings. The graduate students and the social science faculty con­ tinued to be consistently more liberal than their respec­ tive counterparts. For both undergraduate and graduate student involvement, identical mean scores of 2.842 and 3.273 were observed for the social science faculty and the liberal arts faculty respectively. With reference to graduate and undergraduate involvement, means of the natural science faculty fell between the two extreme groups in each case with mean scores of 2.909 and 2.955 respectively. In each case, more them 50 percent of each 152 faculty group felt that an advisory role was most appro­ priate for both graduates and ■undergraduates in this area. The means of the undergraduate and graduate student repre­ sentatives showed little deviation from one another. They both continued to indicate a much more positive group attitude than any of the other differing groups. The final two items dealing with curricular and personnel matters were extreme in that they solicited attitudes concerning student participation in the deter­ mination of salaries of individual faculty members (No. 98, and 99)• As might be anticipated, the great majority of the Academic Council, as well as that of each of its component groups, strongly indicated that students should not be equal partners in this area. The mean score of the Academic Council was 3-598 for undergraduate student involvement and 3-802 for graduate student involvement. In both cases, approximately two-thirds of the Academic Council indicate that neither undergraduate nor graduate students should be involved in these matters in any way. There was a relative degree of agreement among students, faculty, and administrators on these two items. The mean scores for administrators, faculty, and students with respect to undergraduate involvement were 3-830, 3-840, sind 3-421 respectively, with students being the most liberal. Concerning graduate student involvement in the determination of faculty salaries, the means for the 153 administrators was 3-600, Tor faculty, 3.694-* and for students, 3-368, The mode for each of these groups for both undergraduate and graduate student representatives was a "A" response indicating that students should have no role whatever in these matters. The graduate student members of the Academic Council continued to exhibit the most favorable attitudes of all of the differing groups. Compared with the mean (3-538) score of the undergraduate council members on Item 98 regarding undergraduate participation, the graduate students had a considerably lower 3-000 mean score. The graduate student members of the Academic Council had an identical 3-000 score with regard to graduate student involvement in individual faculty salary decisions while the undergraduate students' mean score dropped to 3-538. With regard to faculty associated with broad academic areas, the social science faculty held most favorable attitudes toward student participation by undergraduates in faculty salary decisions, but not graduate student participation. The mean score for the social science faculty was 3-528 and 3-667 for undergraduates and grad­ uates respectively. The corresponding mean scores for the natural science faculty was 3-619 on both Items 98 and 99 while the liberal arts faculty had identical 3-900 means on these same items. All three faculty groups 154 - had substantial majorities indicating a "4-" or "no involvement" response. The next group of* Academic Freedom scale items to be considered included eight items designed to test attitudes of the Academic Council with respect to univer­ sity-wide academic decision-making. As in previous dis­ cussions of individual items, a statement concerning a specific decision-making area was followed by two numbered items. The first item asked the respondent to indicate for undergraduate students, the scope of student involve­ ment he felt most desirable, and the second asked the same with respect to graduate student involvement. The first set of these items concerned student par­ ticipation in the reordering of institutional priorities. The Academic Council as a whole responded in such a way that the mean scores and distributions were quite similar with respect to undergraduate and graduate student par­ ticipation. The mean scores of 2.4-27 and 2.593 for under­ graduate participation and graduate student participation and distributions indicating approximately equal numbers of Academic Council members in favor of, and not in favor of, voting status for both graduate and undergraduate students, indicated a diversity of attitudes. Looking at the Academic groups shown to be different on this scale, the student members continued to be most favorable among students, faculty, and administrators* 155 while the social science faculty again was most positive among the faculty groups. The difference between under­ graduate student representatives and the graduate student representatives were minimal on Items 92 and 93A comparison of the distributions of the students, faculty, and administrators showed that 36.8 percent of the students favored strong undergraduate student involve­ ment and another 4-7-4- percent advocated moderate involve­ ment in decisions affecting institutional priorities. The respective figures for faculty Academic Council members were 8.0 percent and 34-.0 percent. An advisory role was viewed as most appropriate by 50.0 percent of the responding faculty Academic Council members. Only 30.0 percent of the administrators advocated strong or moderate participation for undergraduates, while 65 percent advocated advisory participation only. The graduate and undergraduate students did not differ appreciably with one another but more than 80 percent of each group advocated either strong or moderate under­ graduate voting privileges. With respect to graduate student participation in the reconsideration of institutional priorities (Item 93)* the attitudes of the Academic Council appear to be much the same as those on undergraduate involvement. The mean scores for administrators, faculty, and students were 2.550, 2.580, and 1.737 respectively. As was the case for undergraduate involvement, these differences appeared 156 to contribute to the overall discrepancies on the Academic Freedom scale as detected by the analysis of variance and Scheffe* operations. The distributions of scores for graduate student involvement were very similar to those relating to undergraduate enrollment. The mean scores of undergraduate and graduate students for graduate student involvement in the area of developing and reconsidering institutional priorities was slightly lower than the mean scores for undergraduate involvement. The distributions of the two groups showed that more than 80 percent of both student groups favored some type of voting graduate student representation in the making of these decisions. The liberal arts faculty representatives to the Academic Council were again the most conservative of the faculty groups with a mean score of 5-091 as compared with 2.500 and 2.353 for the natural science faculty represen­ tatives and the social science faculty representative respectively. In terms of the distributions, 27-2 percent of the liberal arts faculty approved of voting student representatives on questions concerning institutional priorities compared with 4-0.9 percent of the natural science faculty and 53-0 percent of the social science faculty. At the other end of the scale, 27-3 percent of the liberal arts faculty felt that students should not be involved in any way in these matters as compared to 4-.5 157 percent of the natural science faculty and zero percent of the social science faculty. Items 98 and 99 asked Academic Council members to record what they felt was the proper roles for under­ graduate and graduate students in the establishing of guidelines for the approval of faculty research tasks. The Academic Council strongly affirmed that this was not a proper matter of either undergraduate or graduate student concern. With respect to undergraduate involvement (Item 8 8 ), the mean score of the Academic Council was 5.650 and. was reflected in the distribution which showed that 90.0 percent of its members did not feel that voting involvement was appropriate. In terms of graduate student involvement the mean of the Academic Council of 5-256 was lower and hence more favorable than was the case for undergraduates. The distribution showed, however, that 83-4- percent of the Academic Council still felt that students should not be full participants in the making of these decisions. An examination of the differing groups gives further evidence that in matters of this type, faculty and adminis­ trators are considerably more cautious than students with regard to voting student participation. On Item 88 dealing with undergraduate involvement in the development of guidelines for the approval of research tasks, the mean scores for the administrators, faculty, and students were 3-650, 3 .74-5, and 2.789 respectively. The comparative 158 mean scores on Item 89 concerning graduate student involve­ ment were 3*300 for administrators, 3-529 for faculty, and 2.4-74- for students. On both items majorities of greater than 90 percent of faculty and administrators on the Academic Council opposed voting student membership on bodies dealing with faculty research guidelines. While 57*9 percent of the students agreed with their non-student colleagues with respect to undergraduate involvement, this percentage dropped to 39*1 when graduate student involvement was being considered. The graduate student representatives to the Academic Council continued to be more favorable than undergraduate student representatives. With respect to undergraduate involvement, the mean score of the graduates was 2.000, with 88.3 percent approving of either moderate or strong involvement. In comparison, the undergraduates had a mean score of 2.692 with only 4-6.2 percent approving a moderate or strong student voice regarding guidelines for approving facialty research. The social science faculty continues to be the most favorable faculty group with regard to student participa­ tion in developing faculty research guidelines, but the mean score and the distribution do not indicate approval of either graduate or undergraduate students* voting privileges. The social science faculty had means of 159 3-667 and 3-589 with respect to undergraduate and graduate student involvement respectively- The comparative scores for the liberal arts faculty representatives were 3-818 and 3*636, while the natural science mean scores were 3-773 and 3-591- The distributions in both cases indicated that nearly 100 percent of each faculty group opposed voting student involvement in this area. The next specific decision-making area considered concerns revising admissions criteria. The mean score of the Academic Council with regard to undergraduate student participation in this area (Item 90) was 2.74-7 while the mean score for graduate student participation (Item 91) was 2.707- The distribution of the Academic Council with respect to undergraduate involvement in matters concerning admissions criteria shows that 38.5 percent felt strong or moderate involvement was appropriate while 61.6 percent felt that undergraduate students should not have voting privileges when these matters are being decided. The mean score and the distribution for graduate student involvement was slightly more positive than the comparative undergraduate statistics. The value of the graduate representatives mean was 2-7°3, reflecting that 39-6 percent endorsed strong or moderate graduate student participation with regard to revising admissions criteria. Among the differing groups, the student Academic Council members were shown to be considerably more 160 positive to both graduate and undergraduate involvement in this area, than faculty and administrators. On both items the graduate students were more liberal than the undergraduates and the social science faculty were slightly more liberal than their natural science and liberal arts counterparts. The mean scores of student, faculty and adminis­ trative Council members were 2.516, 2.808, and 2.516 respectively with regard to undergraduate involvement (Item 90), and 2.211, 2.808, and 2.900 respectively with regard to graduate student involvement (Item 91)With respect to undergraduate involvement in the revising of admissions criteria, 80 percent of the administrators and 61.6 percent of the faculty disapproved of voting student involvement as compared with only 56.9 percent of the student representatives. The student scores were relatively evenly distributed among the four response alternatives while the scores of the faculty and administrators indicated greater consistency with the majority of responses falling in alternative "3"* the advisory involvement alternative. The distribution of faculty scores with respect to graduate involvement was exactly the same as for under­ graduate involvement. The percentage of faculty represen­ tatives to the Academic Council registering opposition to strong or moderate graduate student voting involvement in admissions criteria decisions was 61.6 percent. The 161 percentage of administrative representatives in this same classification was 80 percent while only 36.8 percent of the students responded similarly. The remaining 12 members or 63-2 percent of the student representatives divided themselves equally between the strong involvement and the moderate involvement response alternatives. With respect to student participation in developing guidelines for assigning credit hours to courses, the responding Academic Council members had highly similar mean scores of 2.467 and 2.44-4 for undergraduate (Item 94) and graduate student (Item 95) involvement. The distribu­ tions of all Academic Council scores showed that for both undergraduates and graduates, exactly half of the respon­ dents approved of voting involvement and the other half were opposed. The only difference between the distribu­ tions on the two items was a shift of two individuals from a no involvement response in the case of undergraduate participation, to a "5“ or advisory involvement responseIn both cases, 15-6 percent approved of strong student involvement and 34.4 approved moderate involvement. The Academic Council students were substantially more receptive to a voting student role in this area than were administrators and faculty. The mean score with respect to undergraduate involvement for the student representatives was 1.895 as compared to 2.700 and 2.588 for administrators and facility. In terms of graduate 162 student participation, the student representatives and faculty did not deviate from their responses concerning undergraduate participation while the administrators' mean of 2.600 was only slightly more favorable. The distributions for undergraduate and graduate student involvement were exactly the same for the faculty and for the student members while the administrators showed a shift of two individuals from no involvement in the case of undergraduates to advisory involvement in the case of graduate student involvement. For both under­ graduate and graduate student involvement, 4-0.0 percent of the administrators and 4-5.1 percent of the faculty respondents favored voting representation by students on matters dealing with the assignment of credit hours to courses. The percentage of student Council members favoring either strong or moderate voting student involve­ ment was 75-7* considerably higher than the percentages of the administrators and faculty. This difference, as reflected in the mean scores, appears to contribute to the differences found in the ANOVA and Scheffe' techniques. The graduate students and the undergraduate students responded in exactly the same way with respect to graduate and undergraduate involvement in credit hour guideline decisions. For Items 94- and 95* the undergraduate mean score was 2.077 as compared with 1.500 for the graduate students. Favoring strong involvement were 66.7 percent 163 of the graduate students and $0.8 percent of the under­ graduate students* The 16*7 percent of the graduate student Academic Council members approved of moderate involvement and another 16*7 percent indicated approval of advisory involvement, while 38*3 percent and 23-1 percent of the undergraduate Council members favored moderate and advisory involvement respectively. The faculty group comparisons again showed consider­ able differences between the liberal arts faculty and the social science faculty. The liberal arts faculty had mean scores of 3*100 and 3*200 for undergraduate and graduate student participation while the social science faculty mean scores were 2.318 for both undergraduate and graduate student involvement. The mean score of the natural science faculty fell between these extreme scores with values of 2.591 for undergraduate participation and 2.54-5 for graduate participation. The distributions of the various faculty groups showed only 20 percent and zero percent of the liberal arts faculty endorsed moderate student involvement and strong student involvement in decisions involving credit hour guidelines. In contrast, the percentages of the social science faculty representatives and of the natural science faculty representatives endorsing moderate or strong student involvement were 52.6 percent and 50*1 percent for both undergraduate and graduate student involvement. 164 The final two items where differences contributing to the overall discrepancies were found among the groups on the Academic Freedom scale concerned two statements relating to student involvement and the traditional con­ cept of faculty and administrative authority in academic governance. Both of these items were stated negatively so that scores below 2.500 indicate negative attitudes toward student involvement in academic governance. The wording of Item 68 reads, "Because students hold the balance of power when the non-student vote is split, students should not have voting privileges." The mean response of the entire Academic Council on this item was 3*330, indicating general disagreement with the statement. The students disagreed most strongly as indicated by their mean score of 5*632. In comparison, the mean scores of the faculty and administrative repre­ sentatives were 3*269 and 3*200 respectively. The student representative distribution showed that *73*7 percent disagreed strongly with the item and another 15*6 percent expressed moderate disagreement. The comparable percentages of the faculty representatives were 4-2.3 percent and 4-4.2 percent. The administrators were the most agreeable with the wording of the item and therefore least amenable to student participation with voting privileges, but none of the administrators disagreed strongly and only 30 percent disagreed. 165 The graduate student representatives had a mean score of 3-833* slightly higher than the 3-538 for under­ graduates. The difference in the means can be attributed for the most part to the fact that 83-3 percent of the graduate students strongly disagreed with the idea that students should not have voting privileges, because they might hold the balance of power when the non-student vote is split. In comparison, only 69-2 percent of the under­ graduates responded this way. Among the differing faculty groups, the liberal arts facility were considerably less amenable toward student participation than either the natural science faculty or the social science faculty. The mean score for the liberal arts faculty was 2.54-5 as compared to 3-318 for the natural science faculty and 3-832 for the social science faculty. The majority of the liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives disagreed with the item, but not strongly. Among the social science faculty, 68.4- percent strongly disagreed and for the natural science faculty, the percentage was 40.9- None of the liberal arts faculty responded in this way. The final item to be considered on the Academic Free­ dom scale suggested, by way of analogy, that a student has no greater right to a voice in academic governance than does an apprentice in the employ of an expert crafts­ man. The mean score of 2.989 indicates the Academic Council 166 was not generally impressed with this line of reasoning. Either disagreeing or disagreeing strongly with the item were a total of 65 members or 72 percent of the responding Academic Council members. Among the students on the Academic Council, the graduate and undergraduate student representatives had mean scores of 3.833 and 3*308 respectively indicating a substantial difference of opinion. This difference is reflected in the modes of the two groups. There were 83-3 percent of the graduate students indicating strong disagreement with the wording of the item as compared to only 38.5 percent of the undergraduate students. A majority of 53.8 percent of the undergraduate students responded with a disagree or "3" response to the item while the comparable percentage for graduate students was 16.7The differing faculty groups continued to differ in a way consistent with the Scheffe* findings. The liberal arts faculty respondents were most favorable toward the wording of the item, followed by the natural science faculty, and the social science faculty respondents respectively. The liberal arts faculty had a mean score of 2.54-5 while that of the natural science faculty was Just slightly higher at 2.632. The social science faculty's mean score of 3-058 was moderately higher than the other two groups and hence more favorable toward student partici­ pation. 167 An additional concern was brought to light during several of the interviews, which have implications for academic freedom. The major reservation to the present plan for student involvement at the Academic Council level, in the minds of those interviewed, concerned the apparent lack of student interest on issues not directly related to their interests. In addition, one adminis­ trator perceives the representatives as having an extremely skewed point of view, not at all representative of the student body. While he felt that the current structure was probably reasonable at the present time, he indicated a preference for some type of systematic sampling pro­ cedure for making student input available. Summary. The student representatives, and particul­ arly the graduate student representatives viewed Academic Council student participation as less detrimental to the climate of academic freedom at Michigan State University than did their faculty colleagues and the combined group of administrative and faculty representatives. Likewise, the social science faculty representatives were signifi­ cantly more positive towards the relationship between academic freedom and Academic Council student participation than were the liberal arts representatives or the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty repre­ sentatives • 168 In general the Academic Council members felt that the student representatives have important insights to contribute to the evaluation of faculty teaching effec­ tiveness, that they understand and accept the academic values, and that they are more concerned with improving programs than determining what is to be taught. The Academic Council did not believe that student participation has threatened the faculty's academic freedom nor has it lowered the faculty's prestige. They consistently disagreed with those items suggesting that the student members have irresponsibly exercised their voting privileges. With respect to the appropriate decision-making role of students, the Academic Council consistently approved voting student representation in matters dealing with general university policy and curriculum. The Council affirmed the limitations of the "Taylor Report" by respon­ ding negatively with respect to student involvement in matters of primarily faculty concern. Administrative Efficiency Scale The Administrative Efficiency scale on the instrument is composed of 22 individual items. Each of the items asks the respondents to strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with a given statement. The funda­ mental question in this section is whether or not student 169 participation makes a quantitative impact on the effici­ ency of the decision-making process at the Academic Council level at Michigan State University. In addition, the various component groups are compared in order to detect statistically significant inter-group differences. As was the case in the Academic Freedom scale, the specific items will he discussed with respect to the Academic Council as a whole, and when differences in mean scores and distributions on a given item occur among groups determined to be statistically different, these differences will be discussed. Inter-Group Comparisons A separate one-way analysis of variance was conducted in order to find any differences that may exist among the groups. The alpha level was set at .05 for each comparison. The comparisons were among the groups, the same as noted in the Academic Freedom scale. The mean scores for the first comparison of students, faculty, and administrators are as follows: TABLE 25 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Group Administrators Faculty Students n 20 53 20 Mean 2.4-5 2.4-8 2.52 Standard Deviation .22 .31 .40 170 Using this information, the computation of the analysis of variance was undertaken yielding the following results for the administrative, faculty, and student components of the 1972-73 Michigan State University Academic Council. TABLE 26 ANOVA Comparison of Administrators, Faculty and Students on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 90 .2093 .100255 P less than F .2093 Significance .8114- No Since the differences found among the means of the three sample groups were not found to be significant at the .05 level, there was no need for additional post hoc testing. The next potential source of difference investigated was among the members of the Academic Council classified according to academic affiliation. The four groups to be compared are liberal arts affiliates, natural science affiliates, non-affiliates, and social science affiliates. Each of these groups, with the exception of the non-affil­ iates which contains only administrators, includes administrators, faculty, and students affiliated with each broad academic classification. these groups are as follows: The mean scores for 171 TABLE 27 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Group Liberal Arts Natural Science Non-Affiliates Social Science n Mean Standard 17 38 7 31 2.57 2.4-9 2.4-2 2.44- •46 .23 .25 -32 The computation of the analysis of variance operation for detection of population mean differences resulted in the following table: TABLE 28 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Sources of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF 2 89 Mean Square F .1185 1.1950 .0991 P less than Significance -3076 No This calculation provides evidence that the mean differences of the various samples are not statistically significant with an alpha level of .05The next set of differences to be tested concerned potential variation in attitudes between long-term faculty representatives (more than two consecutive years of Academic Council service) and short-term faculty representatives. It was felt that the long-term faculty might show some difference in response on the basis of 172 the long deliberations and compromises which occurred prior to the incorporation of student participation at the Academic Council level at M.S.U. The mean scores for these groups are as follows: TABLE 29 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for LongTerm and Short-Term Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Group n Mean Long-Term Short-Term 17 36 2.48 2.47 Standard Deviation .37 .28 The analysis of variance operation for determination of difference between population means resulted in the following table: TABLE 30 ANOVA Comparison of Long-Term Faculty and Short-Term Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square F P less than Between Groups Within Groups 1 47 .0021 .0920 .0227 .8808 Significance No The results indicate that the differences between the sample means of the long-term and short-term faculty are not statistically significant at an alpha level of .05 and cannot be inferred to their respective populations. The next set of comparisons involved the undergraduate and graduate student members of the Academic Council. The frequencies, mean scores, and standard deviations for this group are as follows: 173 TABLE 31 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviation for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Standard Group Frequency Mean Deviation Undergraduate Students Graduate Students 146 2-57 2-39 *4-6 -16 The computation of the analysis of variance operation to test for differences between undergraduate students and graduate students yielded the following information in table form. TABLE 32 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square F P less than Significance Between Groups Within Groups 1 18 .1300 .1625 .8003 .3829 No Again, the conclusion can be drawn that with an alpha level of .05* there is no statistically significant difference between graduate and undergraduate students with respect to their responses to items in the Adminis­ trative Efficiency scale. The next consideration was the investigation of Academic Council component groups classified according to academic affiliation, concerning the existence of statis­ tically significant responses to the Administrative Efficiency scale. While previous testing has shown that no difference was present in terms of response to the 174 Administrative Efficiency scale among all affiliates of the broad academic classifications, the administrators, faculty, and students in each area were also investigated. The liberal arts administrators, the natural science administrators, the non-affiliated administrators, and the social science administrators were tested for dif­ ferences of opinion concerning the impact of Academic Council student participation on administrative efficiency. The means, frequencies, and standard deviations of each of the groups are represented in the following table: TABLE 33 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Group Frequency Mean Standard Deviation 2 6 7 5 2.30 2.53 2.42 2.47 .04 .24 .23 .21 Liberal Arts Administrators Natural Science Administrators Non-Affiliated Administrators Social Science Administrators From this data, the following analysis of variance operation was performed. TABLE 34 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF 2 16 Mean Square F_ P less than .0447 .0317 .8639 .4403 Significance No 175 Again, "the conclusion is that there is no significant difference with regard to the Administrative Efficiency scale among administrators classified according to broadly defined academic affiliations. The faculty representatives to the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council, when classified according to academic affiliation, were tested for population mean differences. The resulting frequencies, means, and standard deviation on the Administrative Efficiency scale are as follows: TABLE 55 Group Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Group Frequency Liberal Arts Faculty Natural Science Faculty Social Science Faculty 11 25 19 Mean 2.65 2.4-9 2.56 Standard Deviation -36 .24.52 This data was then incorporated into the analysis of variance technique, resulting in the following table: TABLE 56 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 50 .5062 .0886 F 3• 4-575 P less than -0593 Significance Yes The conclusion to be drawn from the above table is that there is a statistically significant difference at 176 the .05 level among literal arts faculty, natural science faculty, and the social science faculty. The next step was to determine, using the Scheffe' post hoc procedure, the exact location of the differences. An examination of the group means in Table 36 led to the developing of the null hypotheses: 1. There is no difference between liberal arts faculty Academic Council members and social science faculty Academic Council members. (AActffir 2. — AAss/= =■ O There is no difference between liberal arts faculty Academic Council members and the combined Academic Council representatives of the natural science faculty and the social science faculty. ( 3- _ (A A aas * o ) - AAss p *o ) There is no difference between the natural science faculty Academic Council members and the social science Academic Council members. ( ^ 3- *- There is no difference between the combined Academic Council representatives of the liberal arts and natural science faculties, and the social science faculty* ( 4-. ) A/SPr — AA. S 3 F~ - (5 ) There is no difference between the natural science faculty Academic Council members and the liberal arts faculty Academic Council members. (AA A/st* - s o) These hypotheses were tested according to the Scheffe* technique, and the results are presented in the following table: 177 TABLE 37 Scheffe* Post Hoc Analysis fox* Location of Population Mean Differences Among Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Administrative Efficiency Scale .. f tfci tju -M - w .2900 -2250 +yU.«,m * = ) _ ^2100 /VJVt - sUssr .1300 ^6< * j r .1600 95% Confidence Inter- Signival Surrounding ficance -1127 .0053 A ^ .1009 -.0296 < ^ .0874 -.0105 < .0923 -.1028 -< .0947 -.0937 < < .574-5 < .4796 < .4305 < -3628 < .4126 Yes No No No No The results of these calculations show that the hypothesis that there is no difference between the liberal arts facility representatives and the social science faculty representatives, can be rejected at the .05 level. Further, when the sample means are considered, the dif­ ference that exists between these groups warrants the additional conclusion that the social science faculty had a lower score indicating more favorable attitudes toward student participation with regard to administra­ tive efficiency, than did the liberal arts faculty representatives. The final group comparison for differences was per­ formed on the mean scores of the sample of students affiliated with the three broad academic areas. The mean scores for each student group are presented in the following table: 178 TABLE 38 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Literal Arts Students, Natural Science Students and Social Science Students on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Group Frequency Liberal Arts Students Natural Science Students Social Science Students 4 9 7 Mean Standard Deviation 2.50 2.44 2.62 .78 .22 .35 This data was then used in the analysis of variance pro­ cedure to test for equality of means. Those computations resulted in the following table: TABLE 39 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Administrative Efficiency Scale Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF 2 17 Mean Square .0628 .1723 F P less than Significance .364-6 .6998 No The student members of the Academic Council affiliated with the three broad academic areas showed no significant differences on the Administrative Efficiency Scale. With the completion of the discussion of the differences among the 1972-73 members of the M.S.U* Academic Council, the focus attention turns to the individual items within the Administrative Efficiency scale. 179 Discussion of Individual Items For the purposes of discussion, the 22 items of the Administrative Efficiency scale are divided into the following categories: Student input (Items 5, 1A, 15, 19* and 61); Structural aspects of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council (Items 29* 32, A9, 50* 51* 52, and 69); and Student performance (Items 20, 30, 31* 38, AO, A 1 , A6, A8, 6A, sind 67)* Each of these items will be dis­ cussed first in terms of the Academic Council as a whole and second, with respect to the groups exhibiting signi­ ficant differences. The only differences detected on the Administrative Efficiency scale occurred between the liberal arts and social science faculty representatives. In terms of decision-making input, the majority of the entire Academic Council feels that the incorporation of students has brought both insights (Item 5) and infor­ mation (Item 19) before the Academic Council which might not have otherwise been considered. The percentages of Academic Council respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing was 82.8 percent with regard to new insights (Item 5) and 76.1 percent with regard to new information (Item 19)But 77*9 percent of the Academic Council members disagreed with the idea that further increases in Academic Council student representation would bring additional valuable insights before the Council. 180 Another valuable addition to the data was the obser­ vation of an interviewee to the point that the freshness and v i t a l i t y of the student representatives outweighed their lack of experience- The minority view was expressed by an administrator who commented that, "Students have had little to contribute in areas solely of interest to the faculty, and very few issues arose that directly concerned students." The Academic Council members who responded to the questionnaire further tended to disagree, although they did so less decisively than in previous items, with Items 14- and 15 which suggest that the at-large women (Item 14) and minority student representatives (Item 15) often bring unique and productive insights before the Academic Council- The percentages of responding Academic Council members disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with Item 14 was 61-1 percent and for Item 15, 66.2 percent. appears to represent the majority opinion of the Council, one interviewee noted that while minority and women student representatives have had little impact on the Council, by virtue of their race or sex, their incorporation has helped to ease the consciences of some individuals- A student commented that another channel has been provided through the incorporation of at-large student representatives. Among the items dealing with the student input aspect of the Administrative Efficiency scale, only Item 5 181 appeared to contribute to the differences discovered between the liberal arts faculty and the social science faculty. This item asked the respondents to indicate their attitude with respect to the statement that Academic Council student participation has brought insights before the Council which otherwise might not have been con­ sidered* On this item, the mean of the Academic Council representatives of the liberal arts faculty was 2*364, indicating moderate agreement. The social science faculty representatives recorded a much more favorable mean of 1-737 on this same item* Although both mean scores fell on the positive side of the continuum, the liberal arts faculty were considerably less positive than the social science faculty, and also less positive than the entire Academic Council mean score of 1*946 for this item* The second group of items to be considered in the Administrative Efficiency scale dealt with the specific structure of the M - = U = experiment in student participation at the Academic Council level. There were 76.4 percent of the Academic Council respondents disagreeing or dis­ agreeing strongly with Item 69 which stated that the great complexity of academic governance precludes meaning­ ful contributions by student representatives- While this item partially reflects that students are capable of contributing to the governance process, the Council's response to Item 29 showed that 71-9 percent of the Academic Council respondents either agreed or strongly 182 agreed that the inexperience of students in these matters have resulted in a more time consuming governance process. A complicating factor was emphasized by many of the interviewees. A student commented that the size of the Academic Council was perceived by many as overwhelming, contributing a major source of frustration and discourage­ ment. An administrator noted that, "It is extremely difficult to evaluate any increase in time of decision­ making due to student participation. It has taken longer to reach decisions, but this increase probably is more a function of size than of student participation. In response to this criticism, another administrator felt that the size of the Academic Council is of little concern. The membership must be sufficiently large so that a variety of views can be expressed and taken into account. Looking at the faculty groups holding different attitudes with respect to student participation and adminis­ trative efficiency, consistent differences between the liberal arts faculty and the social science faculty representatives were found on Items 29 and 69. On Item 69 the liberal arts faculty had a mean score of 2.273 as compared to 3-383 for the social science faculty. Agree­ ing or strongly agreeing with the statement that the com­ plexity of governance precluded meaningful student con­ tributions, were 54-«8 percent of the liberal arts faculty representatives. The comparative figure for social science faculty representatives was 5-8 percent. 185 With respect to Item 29 stating that student inex­ perience has made the governance process more timeconsuming, the liberal arts faculty representative had a mean score of 1.54-5 as compared to 2.316 for the social science faculty. Although both groups had means below the 2.500 midpoint indicating general agreement with the wor­ ding of the item, all of the liberal arts faculty, or 100 percent, agreed or strongly agreed while the comparative figure for the social science faculty was 60.9 percent. Item 52 suggested that the student representatives are capable of m a k i n g their m a x i m u m contribution to the academic process immediately. The Academic Council did not feel that this was the case, and responded with a mean score of 3.152. Expressing either disagreement or strong disagreement were 82.5 percent of the Academic Council respondents. This item was fairly consistently answered by the liberal arts and the social science faculty representatives. Their respective mean scores were 3.4-55 and 3*211. With regard to improving the quality of student participation on the Academic Council, the respondents indicated agreement with Item 49, suggesting that students be required to serve on a lower level decision-making body before becoming eligible for Academic Council ser­ vice. But Items 50 and 51, proposing salaries and acade­ mic credit for student representatives to the Academic 184 - Council met; with relatively strong disagreement from the Academic Council respondents. On Item 4-9, dealing with prior service as a pre­ requisite for student Academic Council participation, the Council's mean score was 2.120 with 72.8 percent either agreeing or agreeing strongly. The means for the liberal arts and social science faculty representatives of 2.000 and 2.105 were consistent, but so closely similar as not to be considered a primary contributor to the differences found between these two groups on the Adminis­ trative Efficiency scale. Besides requiring prior service, another alternative for improving the quality of Academic Council student participation was suggested during one of the interviews. An administrator commented that the main problem of the student representatives is a lack of staff support, guidance, information, and backup services. "Without this Support, the tendency is for individuals of limited exper­ ience to act in an overly cautious and sensitive manner. Students don't need courses or experience as much as they need direction and resources." Another individual indicated that the creation of the Elected Student Council composed of student Council members meeting together, has brought substantial improve­ ment in the performance of student representatives. A student representative suggested that the Elected Student Council be expanded to include extensive dis­ cussions concerning the goals and philosophy of the institution. With regard to the payment of salaries (Item 50) and granting academic credit (Item 51)» the means for the Council were 5-4-24- and 5.152 respectively. The percen­ tages of Academic Council respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing were 88.0 percent and 71.0 percent for Items 50 and 51 respectively. The mean scores of the liberal arts and social science faculty representatives were 5-727 and 5-4-21 for each of these two items, indi­ cating somewhat small, but consistent differences with those found by analysis of variance and post hoc pro­ cedures. The next series of items considered, dealt with the attitudes of the Council members with regard to one year of actual student performance in the exercise of their decision-making responsibilities as members of the Academi Council. The members of the Council generally agreed that the student representatives carefully considered the evidence before casting their votes (Items 4-8 and 4-6). The majority of the Academic Council respondents feel that the student members have fulfilled the responsibilities that accompany the rights of membership (Item 4-1), and that they are not easily intimidated by their non-student colleagues (Item 67). 186 The responses of the Academic Council were incon­ clusive with respect to items pertaining to student indif­ ference, openness, and preparation. The mean score and the distribution indicates a relatively even split between agreement and disagreement with respect to Item 30 suggesting that the student representatives have often been indifferent on many more of the more important issues brought before the Academic Council. Item 38, which stated that students conscientiously prepare for Academic Council meetings, and Item 40, affirming the openness and flexibility of the student representatives, also elicited a divided response from the Academic Council respondents. The means for Items 30, 38, and 40 were found to be 2.533, 2.524 and 2.511 with approximately equal numbers of the respondents both agreeing and dis­ agreeing with each of these three items. Close to two-thirds of the Academic Council agreed or strongly agreed, however, that many of the student concerns might better be accommodated at the lower levels of academic governance (Item 31), and that the shortrange interests and concerns of students pose difficulties when the long-range interests of the institution are at stake (Item 32). The mean score for Item 31 was found to be 2.233, and the mean for Item 32 was 2.196. Looking at the means and distributions of represen­ tatives of the liberal arts and social science faculties, 187 groups found to be significantly different on the Adminis­ trative Efficiency scale, differences were found on Items 32, 38, and 48. These differences appear to contribute to the discrepancy found between the liberal arts and social science faculty representatives. On Item 32 more members of both the liberal arts and social science faculties responded with a ,,2 ’', or agree with the statement that the short-range interests and concerns of students pose difficulties when the longrange institutional interests are at stake, than any of the other three alternatives. The difference between the liberal arts faculty mean of 1.818, and the social science mean of 2.316, is reflected primarily in the fact that 81.9 percent of the liberal arts faculty either agreed or strongly agreed with the item as compared to only 57-9 percent for the social science faculty. The liberal arts faculty tended to disagree with Item 48 which stated that the student representatives to the Academic Council generally decided their stand on an issue on the basis of the evidence rather than on the opinions of influential non-students. The mean score of the liberal arts faculty was found to be 2.889- In con­ trast, the social science faculty had a mean score of 2.133, considerably lower than that of the liberal arts faculty. While 80.0 percent of the social science faculty agreed or strongly agreed with Item 48 as stated, the 188 corresponding figure for the liberal arts faculty was only 22.2 percent. With respect to Item 38 which stated that most of the students conscientiously prepare for the business to be conducted during Academic Council meetings, the liberal arts faculty disagreed by responding with a group mean score of 2.900. In comparison, the mean for the social science faculty representatives was 2.375 indicating moderate agreement. In terms of the distribution of responses, 62.6 percent of the social science faculty respondents indicated either agreement or strong agreement with the item. The comparable figure for the liberal arts faculty was 30-0 percent. A student representative to the Academic Council amplified these findings when he commented, ”1 feel the students have shown themselves to be extremely paralleled with faculty in almost every respect with the major exception that they are a much more transient group. This is particularly manifested in the students' desire for quick action (sometimes at the expense of quality). Paradoxically, as a group, they are somewhat less capable of meeting and discharging obligations with rapidity than are their nonstudent counterparts." The final two items to be considered in the Adminis­ trative Efficiency scale dealt with the consequences of student participation at the level of the Academic Council with respect to decision-making output. Item 20, stated 189 that student participation at the Academic Council level at M.S.U. has facilitated the implementation of policies and regulations, The mean response of the Academic Council was found to be 2,622 indicating a slight degree of disagreement with the thrust of the item. Disagreeing with the item were 55-6 percent of the Academic Council respondents, with another 4,A percent expressing strong disagreement. A comparison of the dissenting faculty groups showed that the social science faculty group mean was 2.529 1 only slightly more positive toward student involve­ ment than the mean of 2,656 for the liberal arts faculty respondents. While this difference is consistent with the analysis of variance and Scheffe’ results, it does not appear to contribute greatly to that conclusion. Item 64 stated that further increases in student participation at the Academic Council level at M.S.U, would improve the quality of decisions rendered by the Council. The Council responded negatively to this item as indicated by the mean score of 3-068. Disagreeing with this item were 45.2 percent of the Academic Council members and another 56.4 percent strongly disagreed. Again, the mean difference between the liberal arts and the social science faculty was small, but it was consistent with the statistically significant discrepancy found on the Administrative Efficiency scale. The mean 190 for the responding liberal arts faculty representatives was 3.455 as compared with 3*059 for the social science respondents. The most popular response for the liberal arts faculty representatives was "strongly disagree" with 54.5 percent so responding. In contrast, the "3" or "disagree" response was most representative of the attitudes of 52.9 percent of the social science faculty. These differences represent not differences in attitude as much as differences in degree, and as such, they appear to contribute somewhat to the differences detected on the Administrative Efficiency scale. Summary. The question raised in this section was whether or not Academic Council student participation has made a difference in the efficiency of the decision-making process at the Michigan State University Academic Council. The social science faculty representatives to the 1972-73 Academic Council were found to have significantly more positive attitudes toward the relationship between Academic Council student participation and administrative efficiency than did the liberal arts faculty representatives. The members of the Academic Council agreed that voting student representation has brought new insights and information before the Council which might not other­ wise have been considered. At the same time, however, the Council did not feel that additional student representation would add significantly to the quality of decisions 191 rendered. Further, the Council did not feel that the minority student representatives have made any quanti­ tative impact. The Academic Council generally agreed that the quality of the student representation has been quite high and that they have cast their votes responsibly on the basis of the evidence. But the Council agreed that the student representatives would be better prepared to contribute if they were required to serve on a lower level decisionmaking body prior to holding membership on the Council. Suggestions that students should be granted salaries or academic credit for Academic Council service met with strong disapproval. The members of the Academic Council generally agreed that many of the student concerns could be handled more effectively elsewhere and that the short-range interests of students often take precedence over long-range insti­ tutional concerns. Community Cohesion Scale The Community Cohesion scale is made up of 19 items dealing with the impact of Academic Council student participation on such qualitative factors as cooperation, communication, satisfaction, and trust, primarily among students, faculty, and administrators. These 19 items, like those in the previous scale, are forced-choice Likert style items with four response alternatives. The 192 respondent may chose to strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with a given statement by marking 1, 2, or 4 respectively. As with the previous scale, the group means of the various component groups of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council will be compared using the one-way analysis of variance technique. Should differences be found, the Scheffe* post hoc procedures will be used to specifi­ cally locate the source of the differences. The alpha level for both of these procedures was set at .0 5 Intergroup Comparisons Looking first at the mean scores for the administra­ tors, faculty, and students, on the Community Cohesion scale, the data is presented in the following table: TABLE 40 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Community Cohesion Scale Group n Administrators Faculty Students 20 53 20 Mean 2.22 2.29 2.46 Standard Deviation .19 .36 .47 Using this data, a one-way of analysis of variance was performed in order to detect any differences in population means. The results of this operation are presented in the following table: 193 TABLE 41 ANOVA Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Community Cohesion Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 90 .334-6 .1296 F 2.5826 P less than Significance .0812 No The mean differences found among the samples therefore cannot be attributed to the respective populations with a given alpha level of .0 5 . The members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council were next classified and compared on the basis of their academic affiliation. The mean scores, frequencies, and standard deviations of the responding members of the 1972-73 Academic Council, classified according to academic affiliation, are presented in the following table with respect to the Community Cohesion scale. TABLE 42 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Community Cohesion Scale Group Liberal Arts Natural Science Non-Affiliates Social Science Frequency Mean 17 38 7 31 2.52 2.33 2.26 2.18 Standard Deviation .44 -32 .24 .36 This data was then used to calculate the analysis of variance operation for equality of population means These calculations resulted in the following table: 194 - TABLE 4-3 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural Science Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Community Cohesion Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 39 .654-9 .1234- F 5*5053 P less than .0067 Significance Yes From this table, the conclusion can be drawn that at the .05 level, a difference occurs among liberal arts affiliates, natural science affiliates, non-affiliates, and social science affiliates. In order to define the exact source of inter-group differences, a series of hypotheses were developed and tested using the Scheffe' post hoc procedure with the alpha level set at .05. The null hypotheses are as follows: 1. There is no difference between liberal arts affiliates and social science affiliates with respect to the Community Cohesion scale. (JA-ax} — AA *s *o ) 2. There is no difference between the natural science affiliates and the social science affiliates with respect to the Community Cohesion scale. ( AA Af* - AA *s = O ) 3- There is no difference between the non-affiliates and the social science affiliates on the Com­ munity Cohesion scale. (A A a/a — 4-. xAst * O ) There is no difference between the combined groups of liberal arts and natural science affiliates, and the social science affiliates on the Community Cohesion scale. ( (AA+* *-AA**s J ) 195 5. There is no difference "between the combined groups of liberal arts and natural science affiliates, and the combined groups of non­ affiliates and social science affiliates on the Community Cohesion scale. o) 6. There is no difference between the liberal arts affiliates and the natural science affiliates on the Community Cohesion scale. (A A i./^ — - O ) There is no difference between the liberal arts affiliates and the combined group of natural science and social science affiliates. (AA*.* - (AA/V'S^ ^ JO - & ) 8. There is no difference between the liberal arts affiliates and the combined group of non-affili­ ates and natural science affiliates. (sU-t.* - 1-^-4a /*) m Q ) Each of these hypotheses were then tested using the Scheffe' post hoc procedure. The results of these tests are presented in the following table; TABLE 44 Scheffe' Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences A m o n g Liberal Arts Affiliates, Natural wllC w Affiliates, Non-Affiliates, and Social Science Affiliates on the Community Cohesion Scale & UU. JAi.a- JA*s .3400 JA *'*- A A 11 .1500 J A M - A-Ass .0800 .2450 __ - ^ ^ £ ^ ^ 2 0 5 0 AA A4)**/CAaJS AA (AA* .1900 -5000 * 2250 vT .1060 .0850 .1470 .0813 .0896 .1205 .1125 .111? 95% Confidence Inter- Signival Surrounding ficance < .6422 .0378 < Yes < .3923 No -.0923 No -.5590 < .4990 Yes .0133 < *4U < -4767 -.0504 < .4604 No < -.1021 <. .4821 No .6207 No -.0207 < tyJL No -.0935 < 4 jL .5433 196 These findings indicate that with 95 percent cer­ tainty, hypotheses 1 and 4 can be rejected. This infor­ mation, when considered with the mean scores in Table 4-3* leads to the two additional conclusions. Since the group mean of the social science affiliates was lower than that of the liberal arts affiliates, it can be said that the social science affiliates are significantly more receptive toward student participation as a means of bringing about greater community cohesion at Michigan State University. The social science affiliates' group mean was also lower and hence more positive, than those of the liberal arts and natural science affiliates. These differences will be pursued furthei as the items comprising the Community Cohesion scale are examined individually. The long-term faculty representatives to the Academic Council were then compared with their short-term counter­ parts, i.e., those with less than three consecutive years of Academic Council service. The group frequencies, means, and standard deviations are presented in the following table: TABLE 45 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for LongTerm and Short-Term Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale Group Long-Term Faculty Short-Term Faculty Frequency Mean 17 36 2.30 2.28 Standard Deviation .37 .28 197 These findings were tested for differences in population means using the one-way analysis of variance technique. The calculation resulted in the following table: TABLE 46 AITOVA Comparison of Long-Term Faculty and Short-Term Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale Source of Variation DF Between Groups Within Groups 1 4-7 Mean Square .0030 .1144 F_ P less than .0259 .8729 Significance No The group mean differences between the long-term and short-term faculty representatives were therefore not found to be statistically significant at the .05 level. The next potential source of differences to be inves­ tigated concerned the sample mean differences between undergraduate and graduate students on the Community Cohesion scale. The frequencies, mean scores, and standard deviations are presented in the following table: TABLE 47 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Community Cohesion Scale Group Undergraduate Students Graduate Students Frequency Mean Standard Deviation 14 6 2.55 2.26 .25 .52 This data was tested for equality of population means using the one-way analysis of variance procedure 198 The alpha level was set at .05. The results of these calculations appear in the following table: TABLE 48 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Community Cohesion Scale Source of Variation DP Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 1 18 -3377 .2139 F 1.5788 P less than Significance .2250 No The information presented in this table indicates that there is no significant difference between the popu­ lation means of the graduate and undergraduate student members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council with respect to the Community Cohesion scale. The next comparison concerned the administrators affiliated with the broad academic areas. The means, frequencies, and standard deviations for these Academic Council groups are as follows: TABLE 49 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Community Cohesion Scale Group Frequency Liberal Arts Administrators Natural Science Administrators Non-Affiliated Administrators Social Science Administrators 2 6 7 5 Mean Standard Deviation 2.23 2.22 2.26 2.16 .04 .14 .24 .24 199 The calculation for the comparison of population means using the one-way analysis of variance technique resulted in the following table: TABLE 50 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Community Cohesion Scale Source of Mean Variation DF Square Between Groups Within Groups 2 16 .0004 .0429 P less F than .0087 -9914 Significance No The results clearly indicate that these groups are not significantly different at the .05 level. Continuing with comparisons on the basis of academic affiliation, the various faculty groups were investigated for potential attitudinal differences. The group means, frequencies, and standard deviations were found and are recorded in the following table: TABLE 51 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Community Cohesion Sc ale Group Liberal Arts Faculty Natural Science Faculty Social Science Faculty Frequency 11 23 19 Mean Standard Deviation 2.56 2.28 2.13 .30 .31 .37 200 These findings provided the basis for the one-way analysis of variance computations for equality of population means which resulted in the following table: TABLE 52 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale Source of Variation Between Croups Within Groups DF 2 50 Mean Square .6440 .1094 F 5-8876 P less than .0051 Significance Yes On the basis of these calculations, the inference can be made that the differences in sample means indicate a statistically significant difference among the popula­ tions of the three Academic Council faculty groups. The precise location of these differences requires the use of the Scheffe1 post hoc procedure. Referring back to the sample means in Table 50, the following null hypotheses were developed for testing: 1. There is no difference between the liberal arts and the natural science faculty representatives on the Community Cohesion scale. (AAi,jf jr - AS/rr/Tje O) 2. There is no difference between the liberal arts and the social science faculty representatives on the Community Cohesion scale. o ) 3. There is no difference between the liberal arts faculty representatives and the combined group of natural science and social science faculty representatives on the Community Cohesion scale. (JA ^ ) 201 Each of these hypotheses were tested using an alpha level of .05. The results of these three Scheffe' post hoc operations are presented in the following table: TABLE 53 Scheffe' Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Community Cohesion Scale XV tjL - 95% Confidence Inter- Signival Surrounding ficance vxc Mt-xe- sUASst? .2800 .4300 3330 .1212 .1235 .1121 .0239 < .3839 .1138 -< < .7462 ,0721 < slightly lower than the liberal arts faculty mean of 1.909* In each of the faculty groups, more than 90 percent of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that representatives should be selected on the basis of their college affiliation rather than by an at-large election. The third and final set of items to be considered on the Community Cohesion scale dealt with the question of the impact of the Academic Council student participation on campus-wide communication and understanding. The responses of the Academic Council show that, while the 214 respondents felt that Council student involvement had encouraged constructive student action (Item 6 ) and made Council decisions more acceptable to students (Item 12), it had not reduced the potential for campus violence (Item 10), nor had it promoted communication among students, faculty, and administrators who are not Council members (Item 11). The responding Council members felt that the Academic Council has resulted in greater faculty confidence in the judgement of both undergraduates (Item 73), and graduates (Item 74-) > and that it has resulted in the faculty and administrative members of the Academic Council becoming more knowledgeable about the needs and concerns of the student population (Item 76). The Council members do not feel that the student members of that body represent their const!tutents better than their non­ student colleagues (Item 45), nor do they feel that the students are effective in communicating their Council experiences to their constituents (Item 45)- The Council's responses raise the interesting question as to how the non-student members perceive their role in relation to their constituents. With regard to Item 6 , stating that student partici­ pation has encouraged constructive student action, the mean score of the Council was a favorable 2.143. Slightly less favorable was the mean score of the natural science 215 affiliates of 2,289 and that of the liberal arts affiliates of 2 .2 3 5 - The mode, or response of greatest frequency, for the Council and each of the three affiliated groups was a "2 " or agreement. With respect to the faculty groups affiliated with the liberal arts, natural sciences, and social sciences, each of these three groups had, on this item, mean scores that were slightly higher, in contrast with the previous group comparison, with the exception of the social science faculty. The liberal arts faculty were least positive with a mean of 2.455 followed closely by 2.304 for the natural science faculty representatives. The social science faculty continued to be the most favorable faculty group toward Academic Council student participation as a means of promoting constructive student action. Its mean on Item 6 was found to be 1.897i more positive than either of the other faculty groups, and also more positive than the mean response of 2.143 for the entire Council. In each case, the majority of all faculty groups responded with a ,l2 ,, or "agree” on Item 6 . The mean score of 2.337 and the observation that 66.3 percent of the Academic Council felt that student involvement in Council decision-making has made decisions of that body more acceptable to the student body (Item 12), constitutes substantial evidence in favor of student participation as a means of strengthening the academic 216 p.nmmnnlty. As in previous items, those Council members affiliated with the social sciences held the more positive attitude as indicated by their mean score of 2.272. Those affiliated with the natural sciences were only slightly less positive, having a mean score of 2 .3 8 9 , while the least positive were those affiliated with the liberal arts, scoring a mean of 2.588. The majority of the liberal arts affiliates (64- percent) indicated that they disagreed with Item 12, while 72.2 percent of the natural science affiliates indicated agreement as did 62.1 percent of those affiliated with the social sciences. An examination of the faculty groups shows much the same results. The liberal arts faculty representatives were least positive with a mean score of 2 .7 2 7 * slightly higher than the mean for the liberal arts affiliates. The natural science facility mean of 2.353 was nearly the same as that of the natural science affiliates, while the 2.059 mean for the social science faculty was lower and hence, more positive, than the social science affiliates' mean. The mean differences between the social science faculty and the liberal arts faculty were relatively sub­ stantial and appeared to contribute to the ANOVA and Scheffe* results. The differences between the social science faculty and the natural science faculty was not as large, but it was consistent with the statistical differences. 217 As a whole, the Academic Council disagreed with Item 10, stating that Academic Council student participa­ tion has reduced the potential for violent campus dis­ ruption. The mean of the entire Council was 2.689 with 55*6 percent of the respondents either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The liberal arts affiliates continued to be the most skeptical of the three affiliated Council groups, of student participation as a means of reducing the potential for violent campus disruption. This group had a mean score of 2.94-1 with 70*6 percent of its respondents either disagreeing or disagreeing strongly. The natural science affiliates had a mean score of 2.667 that again placed them between the liberal arts and the social science groups. Disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with Item 10 were 53*7 percent of the respondents affiliated with the natural sciences. The social science affiliates were found to have the most favorable attitudes toward Academic Council student participation as a means of preventing campus disorder. But their mean score of 2.689 and the fact that 50.0 percent either disagreed or dis­ agreed strongly, indicates that even this group did not feel that there was a strong relationship between Academic Council participation and campus disorder. Again, the differences among the groups found to be statistically different were relatively small, although they were consis­ tent with the ANOVA and Scheffe* findings. 218 The faculty respondents affiliated with the three broad academic areas responded in much the same way. The mean for the liberal arts faculty was found to be 3.182, while the values of the means of the natural science and social science faculties were found to be 2 .54-5 and 2.556 respectively. Among the liberal arts faculty 81.9 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that Council student participation has reduced the potential for student violence. The corresponding figures for the natural science and social science faculties were found to be 4-5-4" percent and 50.0 percent respectively. The statement that Academic Council student partici­ pation has promoted student-facuity-administrative communi­ cation among non-Council members (Item 11) was met with substantial disagreement among the entire Academic Council and also among the statistically different component groups. The Council's mean score was 2.784- with 65-8 percent either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The mean for the liberal arts affiliates was 3-059 and the corresponding figures for the natural science and social science affil­ iates were 2.833 and 2.64-3 respectively. Disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with Item 11 were 82-3 percent of the liberal arts affiliates, 69-3 percent of the natural science affiliates, and 54.2 percent of the social science affiliates. 219 The statistically different faculty groups continued in the same pattern as in previous items with the liberal arts faculty least positive and the social science faculty most positive. There were 100.0 percent of the liberal arts faculty respondents who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the item resulting in a rather high group mean of 3.564-. The corresponding figures for the natural science and social science faculty representatives were 81.0 percent and 50.0 percent expressing various degrees of disagreement and mean scores of 2.952 and 2.565 res­ pectively. Por both sets of differing affiliated groups, the difference between liberal arts representatives and social science representatives appears substantial enough to have contributed to the significant differences detected among the mean scores of the various groups. Item 11 stated that Academic Council student partici­ pation has promoted communication among members of the Michigan State University community who are not members of the Academic Council* The mean score of 2.784- for the entire Council and the observation that 64-.8 percent of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed indicate that this generally has not been the feeling of the Academic Council. The liberal arts affiliates followed the established pattern by disagreeing most strongly with Item 11. Their 220 group mean was found to be 3.059 and 82.4 percent; of the respondents either disagreed or disagreed strongly with the item. The natural science affiliates were midway between the liberal arts and social science affiliates with a mean of 2.833 and 69*5 percent either disagreeing or disagreeing strongly. The social science affiliates continued to have the most positive attitudes among the three groups toward Academic Council student participation and communication outside the Council, but they, too, tended to disagree with a mean of 2.643. Fifty-three percent of its members indicated disagreement or strong di sagreement. Among the faculty groups, the same general trend continued with respect to Item 11. The liberal arts faculty had the highest, and therefore most negative, group mean response of 3.364. All 100 percent of these faculty representatives either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the item. The natural science faculty respondents had a lower mean score of 2.952 with 81.0 percent disagreeing or disagreeing strongly, while the social science respondents continue to hold the most positive attitudes. Their mean was found to be 2.563 with 50.0 percent of their group disagreeing or disagreeing strongly. This item, even though each of the dissenting groups expressed disagreement, appeared to have contributed to the differences found between the social science 221 affiliates and the liberal arts affiliates, between the social science affiliates and the combined group of natural science and liberal arts affiliates, between the liberal arts faculty and the social science faculty, and between the liberal arts faculty and the combined group of natural science and social science faculties. There was general agreement among the members of the Academic Council with respect to Academic Council student participation as a means of providing faculty and adminis­ trative Academic Council members with greater knowledge concerning the needs and concerns of the student population (Item 76)- The Council responded with a mean score of 2.184- with 77*0 percent of the respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the item. This response would seem to indicate that student participation at the Academic Council level has, to a degree, accomplished a step toward bringing the University community together by virtue of providing greater information to faculty and administrators concerning the needs and concerns of the student body. The majority of the liberal arts affiliates (53-3 percent) disagreed with this statement, while 37-2 percent of the natural science affiliates and 66.7 percent of the social science affiliates expressed either agreement or strong agreement. A comparison of the mean scores reflects this difference in distribution. The liberal arts 222 associates had a mean of 2.667 as compared with 2.350 for the natural science affiliates and 2.14-3 for the social science affiliates. The differences among the faculty groups were slightly more pronounced. Disagreeing with the statement were 66-7 percent of the liberal arts faculty respondents. Among the natural science faculty, 65-0 percent agreed with the statement and 71-4- percent of the social science faculty either agreed or strongly agreed. A comparison of the faculty means on this item shows that the liberal arts group had a mean of 2.667» the natural science group had a 2.350 mean, and the mean of the social science faculty was 2.143. This item also appears to have con­ tributed to the ANOVA and Scheffe' differences detected between the social science and liberal arts affiliates, between the social science affiliates and the combined group of natural science and liberal arts affiliates, between the liberal arts faculty and the social science faculty, and between the liberal arts faculty and the combined group of natural science and social science faculties. The Council also indicated that it believed that faculty confidence in the judgement of undergraduate students had increased (Item 73) and, in the judgement of graduate students (Item 7^)* it had also increased. The mean scores for the faculty were 2.282 and 2.298 223 respectively. Agreeing or strongly agreeing that faculty confidence in student Judgement had increased, were 68.2 percent with respect to undergraduate students and 66.7 percent with respect to graduate students. The overall results for these items also indicated a favorable res­ ponse by the Academic Council with respect to the one-year experiment in student involvement. The liberal arts affiliates had means of 2.4-12 with respect to both undergraduates and graduates, and con­ tinued to hold the least favorable attitudes. The corres­ ponding means for the natural science affiliates were 2.230 for undergraduates and 2.278 for graduates, while the social science affiliates responded with means of 2.192 for undergraduates and 2.200 for graduates. An investigation of the distributions shows that 53-0 percent of the liberal arts affiliates agreed or strongly agreed that faculty confidence in the Judgement of both undergraduate and graduate students had increased. The corresponding figures for the natural science affili­ ates were 72.3 percent and 69-5 percent, and for the social science affiliates, 78.9 percent and 78.0 percent with regard to undergraduates and graduates respectively. The examination of the means and distributions of the differing faculty groups indicated that the liberal arts faculty disagreed with the statements that faculty confidence in student Judgement had increased as a result 224 of Academic Council student participation. The natural science and social science faculty representatives agreed with these statements. The liberal arts faculty responded with means of 2.636 with respect to increased faculty confidence in both undergraduates and graduates. The corresponding means for the natural science faculty were 2.190 and 2.238, and 2.188 and 2.200 for social science faculty. Disagreeing with both items were 63.6 percent of the liberal arts faculty, while 75*1 percent of the social science faculty agreed or strongly agreed that their confidence in the judgement of undergraduates had increased, and 73.4 percent responded similarly with respect to confidence in graduate students. The natural science faculty fell in between with 7 0 -^ percent agreeing or strongly agreeing with respect to undergraduate students and 66.6 percent for graduate students. These differences appeared to contribute most to the statistical differences found between the liberal arts faculty and social science faculty representatives, and to a lesser degree, to the differences found between the liberal arts affiliates and the social science affiliates. The statistically significant differences between the social science affiliates and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science affiliates, and between the liberal arts faculty and the combined group of natural science and social science faculty are 225 consistent with the mean differences on these two items. The Academic Council is not convinced that the student members of the Council are effective in communi­ cating their Council experience to their constituents (Item 45)* The Council had a mean score of 2.720 and 66.7 percent of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the item. The liberal arts affiliates had a mean of 2.875 on this item with 81.5 percent expressing either disagree­ ment or strong disagreement. The social science affili­ ates were considerably more positive with regard to the effectiveness of student Academic Council members in communicating their experiences to their constituents. Their mean response was found to be 2.518 with 65-6 percent of the respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the item. The natural science affiliates fell slightly above their liberal arts counterparts with a mean score of 2.879 and with 75-7 percent either dis­ agreeing or strongly disagreeing. This item appears to be an important contributor to the differences found between the social science affiliates and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science affiliates, and also to the difference between the social science and liberal arts affiliates. The faculty group comparison showed that the social science faculty was evenly divided between agreement 226 and disagreement and had a mean score of 2.500. Only slightly higher at 2*684 was the group mean of the natural science faculty, 65-2 percent of whom disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the student members are effective in communicating their Council experiences to their constituents. The liberal arts faculty had the highest mean of 2.900 with 80.0 percent either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement. These dif­ ferences are consistent with both differences found with the ANOVA and Scheffe* operation. However, this item appeared to contribute more substantially to the difference found between the liberal arts faculty and the social science faculty than to the difference between the liberal arts faculty and the combined group of social science and natural science faculty representatives. The final item to be considered in the Community Cohesion scale stated that the student members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council represented their con­ stituents less well than do the non-student Academic Council members (Item 43)# The Academic Council reacted negatively to this item, indicating attitudes favorable to student participation as shown by its mean score of 2.8?2 and the fact that 76.9 percent of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the item. Among the affiliated groups, the social science affiliates had the highest m ean score of 2.964, followed 227 by the natural science affiliates with a mean of 2.889, and the liberal arts affiliates with a mean of 2.706. Disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with Item 43 were 82.2 percent of the social science affiliates, 83.3 percent of the natural science affiliates, and 58-8 percent of the liberal arts affiliates. This item appeared to have had only a minor impact upon the dif­ ferences found between the affiliated groups on the Community Cohesion scale. The differences between the faculty groups were more pronounced, ranging from 1.909 for the natural science faculty, to 2.453 for the liberal arts faculty, to 3-000 for the social science faculty. Agreeing or strongly agreeing that the student representatives represented their constituents less well than did the non-student Council members were 90.9 percent of the natural science faculty, 54.6 percent of the liberal arts faculty, but only 11.1 percent of the social science faculty. While this item appeared to have made a sub­ stantial contribution to the difference between the liberal arts and social science faculty, it does not appear to have contributed to the difference between the liberal arts faculty and the combined group of natural science and social faculty representatives. Summary. The Community Cohesion scale attempted to assess the impact of Academic Council student participa­ tion on subjective factors such as cooperation, 228 communication, satisfaction, trust and acceptance among the members of the 1972-73 Academic Council. The social science faculty representatives were found to have significantly more favorable attitudes in this regard than either the liberal arts faculty representatives or the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives. These same differences were also found to exist among all those Academic Council members affiliated with the social sciences, the liberal arts, and the natural sciences. The Academic Council was in general agreement that its administrative, faculty, and student representatives work together harmoniously and that all members feel free to express their views without intimidation. The Council agreed that while its current structure constitutes more than token student representation, its student mem­ bers are not satisfied with the special exclusions placed upon them by the !,Tayior Report". The Academic Council agreed that student participation has encouraged con­ structive student action and that the Council's decisions have been made more acceptable to the student body. Academic Council student participation has increased faculty confidence in the Judgement of students and faculty and administrative representatives have become more aware of the needs and concerns of students. The Academic Council did not feel that student involvement at this level has had much impact outside the Council. !1 ■c ii 229 They strongly agreed that the selection of student repre­ sentatives on the basis of their college affiliation should be continued. Educational Value Scale The final scale on the instrument, the Educational Value scale, is made up of ten items designed to measure the attitudes of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council with regard to Academic Council student participation as an educational opportunity for the students involved. These items are all of the four alternative Likert variety and include the following: Items 2, 7, 8, 9, 39, 4-2, 4-7, 65, 66, and 82. Intergroup Comparisons The first test for difference in population means on the Educational Value scale took place among adminis­ trators, faculty, and students on the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council. The following table contains the group means, frequencies, and standard deviations for each of these three groups: TABLE 56 Croup Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Educational Value Scale Croup Administrators Faculty Students n 20 55 20 Mean 2.27 2.20 2-51 Standard Deviation .22 .33 .35 230 Using this data, the one-way analysis of variance technique was applied in order to detect any statistically significant differences in population means on the ten items that constitute the Educational Value scale. The results of this application are presented in the following table: TABLE 3? ANOVA Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Educational Value Scale Source of Variation DF Between Groups Within Groups 2 90 Mean Square .7126 .0988 F 7-2138 P less than .0013 Significance Yes With an alpha level of .03, there is a significance difference found among the administrators, faculty, and students on the Educational Value scale. This difference was further tested using the Scheffe1 post hoc procedure in order to locate specifically the source of this difference. Using the sample means recorded in Table 55* the following null hypotheses were developed for testing. The hypotheses to be tested included the following: 1. There is no difference between the administrators and students with respect to the Educational Value scale. ( 2. =• O ) There is no difference between the faculty and the students with respect to the Educational Value scale. (^ r - yC< j - O ) 231 3. There is no difference between the combined group of administrators and faculty, and the students with respect to the Educational Value scale. C - o ) <2- Each of these null hypotheses were tested using the Scheffe* technique. The results of these statistical comparisons are presented in the following table: TABLE 58 Scheffe* Post Hoc Analysis for Location of Population Mean Differences Among Administrators, Faculty, and Students on the Educational Value Scale . fy* ? V'x.* -.24-00 -.3100 C y U 3 -.2750 t-CjL. .0994.0825 .0815 95% Confidence Inter- Signi­ val Surrounding ficance -.4-874 <• -.5153 < -.4778 < ^ < .0074 < -.1047 <-.0722 No Yes Yes These results, taken in conjunction with the sample mean scores yield significant statistical evidence that hypotheses 2 and 3 can be rejected with 95 percent con­ fidence, euid that the students are less favorable than either the faculty or the combined group of faculty and administrators. Viewed another way, both the faculty Council members, and the combined group of faculty and administrative Council members viewed Academic Council student involvement more positively than did the student members with regard to its value as an educational resource. This finding tends to indicate that the non-student Academic Council members, to a greater extent than the student members, viewed the students as learners. 232 The next comparison for population mean differences on the Educational Value scale concerns the long-term faculty Council representatives and their short-term counterparts- The means, frequencies, and standard deviations for these two groups are presented in the following table: TABLE 59 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Long-Term and Short-Term Faculty on the Educational Value Scale Group Frequency Long-Term Faculty Short-Term Faculty 17 36 Mean Standard Deviation 2-16 2.22 .42 .28 Using this data, the one-way analysis variance test for equality of populations was undertaken yielding the following results in tabular form; TABLE 60 ANOVA Comparison of Long-Term Faculty and Short-Term Faculty on the Educational Value Scale Source of Variation DF Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups 1 47 .1858 1.6763 .1144 F_ P less than Significance -1981 No The results of this test indicate that with 95 percent confidence, it cannot be inferred that a difference exists between long-term and short-term faculty. The next comparison took place between the graduate and undergraduate student representatives to the 1972-75 233 M.S.U. Academic Council. The initial comparison of sample means and standard deviations necessary for the computa­ tion of the analysis of variance test for equality of population means resulted in the following data: TABLE 61 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Educational Value Scale Group Frequency Undergraduate Students Graduate Students 146 Mean Standard Deviation 2.38 2-35 .37 -26 Using this information, the one-way analysis of variance for equality of population means was performed. The following table summarizes this computation. TABLE 62 ANOVA Comparison of Undergraduate and Graduate Students on the Educational Value Scale Source of Variation Between Groups v/ithin Groups Mean DF Square 1 18 .2273 .1160 P less F .1787 than .1787 Significance No The results of this test for equality of population means provides statistically significant evidence that at the .05 level, there is no difference between the means of the undergraduate and graduate student members of the Academic Council. The next comparison to be investigated concerned the administrators affiliated with the broad academic 234areas of liberal arts, natural science, and social science. Also included in this comparison are those administrators on the Academic Council who have titles that are not restricted to any broad academic areas, i.e., Vice President for Student Affairs, Director of Libraries, etc. The data taken from the respondents is presented in the following table: TABLE 63 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Educational Value Scale Group Frequency Liberal Arts Administrators Natural Science Administrators Non-Affiliated Administrators Social Science Administrators 2 6 7 5 Mean Standard Deviation 2.33 2.27 2.32 2.17 .21 .21 .20 .29 This data was then incorporated into the calculations for the one-way analysis of variance test for equality of means. The results of this test are presented in the following table: TABLE 64 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Administrators, Natural Science Administrators, Non-Affiliated Administrators, and Social Science Administrators on the Educational Value Scale Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF 2 16 Mean Square .0071 .0322 F_ .1366 P less than .8734 Signif icance No 235 The results provide a statistically significant basis for the inferrence that at the .05 level, there is no difference among the administrators on the 1 9 7 2 —73 Academic Council when classified according to broad academic areas, with respect to the educational value of student participation. The faculty representatives to the 1972-73 Academic Council were similarly classified and compared. The means, frequencies, and standard deviations for each of the faculty groups affiliated with the liberal arts, the natural sciences, and the social sciences were calculated and are recorded in the following table: TABLE 65 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Educational Value Scale Group Liberal Arts Faculty Natural Science Faculty Social Science Faculty Frequency 11 23 19 Mean 2.33 2.23 2.10 Standard Deviation -23 .28 .4-1 The computation of the one-way analysis of variance test for equality of population means resulted in Table 66. The results of this operation indicate that at the .05 level, there are no statistically significant differ­ ences among the three groups of faculty representatives to 236 TABLE 66 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Faculty, Natural Science Faculty, and Social Science Faculty on the Educational Value Scale Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF 2 50 Mean Square .1858 .1058 F 1.7561 F less than Significance .1832 No the Academic Council with regard to the mean scores on the Educational Value scale. The final comparison of mean scores on the Educational Value scale took place among the student members of the 1972-73 K.S.U. Academic Council affiliated with the liberal arts, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. The means, frequencies, and the standard deviation for each group were calculated and recorded in the following table: TABLE 67 Group Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations for Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Educational Value Scale Group Liberal Arts Students Natural Science Students Social Science Students Frequency 49 7 Mean 2*65 2.4-3 2.54- Standard Deviation -4-6 .36 .29 The one-way analysis of variance test for equality of means was then conducted, yielding the following results: 237 TABLE 68 ANOVA Comparison of Liberal Arts Students, Natural Science Students, and Social Science Students on the Educational Value Scale Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups DF Mean Square F P less than .0678 .1283 -5289 -5987 2 17 Significance No The student members of the 1972—73 M.S.U. Academic Council, grouped according to their academic affiliation, did not v a r y with one another in terms of their responses on the Educational Value scale. Discussion of Individual Items As in the previous scales, the individual items, and the responses of the Academic Council to these items, and the responses of the significantly different groups will be descriptively discussed. The items in the Educational Value scale fall into two general groups which will be discussed separately. The first deals with those aspects of the Academic Council environment which either contribute to or detract from its value as an educational resource. the following: The items in this section include Items 2, 8, 9, 39* and 82. An additional set of items deals with the educational aspects of the Academic Council student participation and the student members' responses to these opportunities during the 1972-73 period. 65, and 66. This section includes Items 7» ^2, 4-7» 238 The Academic Council as a whole agreed that the bureaucratic machinery has discouraged many of the student representatives (Item 2). They also agreed that the student representatives were deeply concerned and sincerely interested in participating in academic governance (Item 39)* and that student participation develops student maturity and responsibility through out-of-class contact with faculty and administrators (Item 9)The members of the Academic Council were indecisive with respect to the statements that Academic Council student participation is best considered in terms of its educational value for the student members (Item 8), and that the long separation in time between decisions and consequences of decisions, works against educational benefits for students (Item 82). Item 2 related to the question of the bureaucratic nature of the Academic Council and student disillusionment and discouragement. The Academic Council had a mean score of 2.182 on this item indicating that many students have been discouraged. Seventy-five percent of the responding Council members either agreed or strongly agreed with this fac t . Expressing one side of the majority attitude, a faculty member commented that the highly structured procedures in the Academic Council precluded the active 239 give-and-take necessary for a truly educational experience. Among the student, faculty, and administrative representatives, the only groups with statistically significant mean score differences, the administrators had the lowest mean of 1.835 followed hy the students and the faculty. These means were found to be 2.100 for the student representatives and 2.340 for the faculty. The mode for these three groups was the same, with each group having at least 60.0 percent of its respondents choosing the "2" or "agree" response alternative. In this case, the lower scores indicate more negative attitudes with respect to Academic Council student par­ ticipation as an educational opportunity. The mean differences of Item 2 were not consistent with the ANOVA and Scheffe' results, and therefore do not contribute to the statistical significance. The response of Lhe Council Lo I Lein o, oLaLing that Academic Council student participation is best considered in terms of its educational value for the student members, was fairly evenly divided between agreement and disagreement. The mean score was found to be 2.435 with 55-4 percent expressing agreement or strong agreement. One of the administrators who was interviewed commented that, "Certainly student participation is educational, for the faculty and administrators, as 240 well as for the students, but providing educational experiences is not the function of the Academic Council," The student members of the Academic Council had a mean score of 2,600, slightly higher and indicating less agreement than the 2.423 mean of the faculty and the 2,300 of the administrators. Agreeing or strongly agreeing with the item were only 45.0 percent of the student members of the Academic Council as compared to 55*8 percent of the faculty and 60,0 percent of the adminis­ trators. This item is consistent with the differences between the three groups as determined by the Scheffe' operation and appears to contribute to those differences. Most of the responding members of the Academic Council (82.4 percent) agreed or strongly agreed with Item 9 stating that Academic Council student participation develops student maturity and responsibility through outof-class contact with faculty and administrators. A student interviewee reflected that, "The most rewarding aspect of the academic governance experience has been meeting new people and establishing relationships with those whom I admire. I feel that the faculty are suppor­ tive and encouraging." The mean score on Item 9 for the Academic Council was found to be 2.077. Among the students, faculty, and administrators, there was little difference in group means. The administrators recorded the lowest group mean with a score of 1.950 and 95.0 percent agreeing or strongly 24-1 agreeing with Item 9- The student members of the Academic Council were slightly less agreeable with a mean of 2*050 and with 90 - 0 percent either agreeing or strongly agreeing. The faculty members were least agreeable with a mean of 2.157* but 7A.5 percent still agreed or strongly agreed that Academic Council student participation develops student maturity and responsibility. This item was not consistent with the Scheffe* results. With respect to Item 59 stating that the student members of the Academic Council are deeply concerned and sincerely interested in participating in academic govern­ ance, 80.9 percent agreed or strongly agreed. The Council's mean score was found to be 2.257* indicating substantial agreement and a favorable attitude toward student parti­ cipation at the M.S.U. Academic Council level. An administrator stated that, "Most of the students have come to understand and accept the sometimes tedious procedures of the Council. Some, however, have become disenchanted, in approximately the same proportion as the faculty. Many are sincerely interested in governance, but some students, like some faculty, love to hear them­ selves talk." The differences among the students, faculty, and administrators were not large, but consistent with the ANOVA and Scheffe* results. The students, surprisingly enough, responded most negatively to the statement that 24-2 student representatives to the Academic Council are deeply concerned and sincerely interested in participa­ ting in academic governance- Their mean on this item was found to be 2.4-21 with 63.2 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing. The administrative representatives to the Academic Council were more favorable with a mean of 2.211. Agreeing or strongly agreeing with Item 39 were 78-9 percent of the administrative representatives. favorable response was made by the faculty. The most Their mean score was found to be 2.039 and. 88.2 percent of this group either agreed or strongly agreed. This item appears to contribute to the statistically significant differences found among the students, faculty, and administrators of the 1972-73 Academic Council. The final item in this section asked the members of the Academic Council to respond to the statement that the long separation in time between decisions and the con­ sequences of decisions, works against educational benefits for students (Item 82). The M.S.U. Academic Council was fairly divided on this statement. The mean score of the Council was found to be 2.4-72 with 33*9 percent expressing agreement or strong agreement and 46.1 percent expressing disagreement or strong disagreement. The response of the student, faculty, and adminis­ trative component groups was found to be consistent with the statistically significant differences on the 24-3 Educational Value scale* The students were most agreeable with this item with 73*7 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing and a mean score of 2.053- The administrative representatives of the Academic Council had a mean of 2*579 with 52.6 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing, while the faculty representatives had a mean of 2*588 with 47*1 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing. The second set of five items in the Educational Value scale dealt with the actual response of the student representatives to the Academic Council to these educational opportunities. The responding members of the Academic Council tended to agree that student representatives have developed maturity through being involved in the making of important decisions (Item 65)* and that they have acted more responsibly in recent meetings than in initial meetings (Item 4-7). The Council also felt that the exper­ iences of the student representatives have stimulated appreciation of the complexities of academic governance (Item 7)i and that students have become more knowledgeable about the concerns of faculty and administrators (Item 4-2). The Council was fairly evenly divided, however, with respect to Item 66 stating that students are viewed primarily as learners by their non-student colleagues. Looking at each of the items in this section individ­ ually, with respect to the Council as a whole and to the differing groups of administrative, faculty, and student 244representatives , -the following observations were made. With respect to Item 7* the Academic Council had a mean score of 1.802 with 85-8 percent of the respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that the Academic Council has stimulated student appreciation for the complexities of the governance process. The mean scores of the differing groups were extremely similar. The adminis­ trators and the students had identical means of 1.800, while the faculty's group mean was only four hundredths higher. Looking at the distributions of these groups, 95-0 percent of the administrators, 84.4 percent of the faculty, and 80.0 percent of the students expressed either agreement or strong agreement with the statement. While this item does not contribute to the statistically significant differences found among the three groups, it does indicate a favorable attitude toward the M.S.U. experiment in student participation at the Academic Council 1 m i - f l "I w W K* «L * The response to Item 42, stating that the student members have become more knowledgeable about the concerns of faculty and administrators, also indicates a favorable attitude. The mean score of the administrators was found to be 2.053- Responding with a "2" or “agree" response were 94.7 percent of the responding administrators. The faculty were slightly more agreeable with this statement as indicated by their mean score of 1.904 and the observa­ tion that 9^-2 percent either agreed or strongly agreed 24-5 with Item 4-2. The most positive response was made by the students- Their mean was 1-789 with 94--7 percent either agreeing or strongly agreeing- Again, this item does not appear to contribute to the statistical dif­ ference among the groups. Item 4-7 asserted that students have acted more res­ ponsibly in recent meetings than in the initial meetings. Taken as a w h o l e , the Academic Council leaned toward the agreement side of the scale with respect to this item as indicated by the mean of 2-367 and 63-5 percent of the respondents indicating agreement or strong agreementThere appeared to be substantial difference among the administrative, faculty, and student representatives on this issue- The student mean was found to be 2.889* considerably less agreeable than the faculty mean of 2.178, and the administrative mean of 2-315- This mean difference is accentuated by the observation that, while 68.8 percent of the administrators and 75-5 percent of the faculty agreed or strongly agreed with Item 4-7, only 35-5 percent of the students responded similarly- These differences appear to contribute substantially to the statistically significant differences found among these three groups. With respect to Item 65, stating that most student members of the Academic Council have developed maturity by being involved in the making of important decisions, the Academic Council tended to respond favorably. The mean score was found to be 2.262 and the percentage of 24-6 respondents expressing agreement or strong agreement was 69-1- The student members of the Academic Council had the least favorable attitude on this item. They had a 2.316 group mean and percentage of either agree or strongly agree responses of 63-1- In comparison, the faculty respondents had a slightly more favorable group mean of 2.298, and the administrative respondents were the most favorable with a mean of 2.111. The percentages of faculty and administrators agreeing or strongly agreeing with Item 65 were found to be 68.1 and 77-8 respectively. The final item of the Educational Value scale (Item 66) stated that the student members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council are viewed primarily as learners by the Academic Council. By a slim margin, the majority of the Council agreed with this item. The Council's mean score was found to be 2.4-00 and 53*3 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that students are viewed primar­ ily as learners. Among the students, faculty, and administrators, the students were found to have the lowest of the three group means, although the differences were small. The student group mean was found to be 2.263 as compared to 2.316 for the administrators and 2.4-89 for the faculty. Agreeing or strongly agreeing with the item were 57-9 percent of the students and 63-2 percent of the administrators. In comparison, 51-0 percent of the faculty responded in this manner. 24-7 Nummary. The Educational Value scale was designed to assess the attitudes of the Academic Council with respect to new student educational opportunities resulting from Academic Council student participation. The faculty representatives and the combined group of faculty and administrative representatives viewed student involvement at this level as a significantly greater source of student educational opportunity than did the student representa­ tives. Strong majorities of the Council agreed that student involvement at this level has contributed to greater student maturity and responsibility and that the student members have developed in this regard during the course of their involvement. The Council viewed Academic Council student involvement as stimulating student appreciation for the complexities of academic governance and for the concerns of faculty and administrators. A strong majority of the Academic Council viewed the student representatives as deeply concerned and sincerely interested in partici­ pating in academic governance. Discussion of the General Items The final group of items to be considered is not directly related to any of the four scales. These items either contain elements of more than one of the four scales, or were designed to elicit attitudes concerning Academic Council student participation with regard to 24-8 specific aspects of the M.S.U. plan which do not readily fall into any of the four scales. Because of the nature of these items, they were not tested for differences among component groups. Instead, they were handled descrip­ tively, concentrating on illuminating the views of the entire Academic Council. The first set of two items in the final section dealt with general aspects of the broad question of student participation at Michigan State University and in American higher education generally. The members of the M.S.U. Academic Council tended to lean toward disagreement with regard to the statement that the students of today are much more capable of con­ tributing to the academic decision-making process than those of earlier generations (Item 1). The Council*s mean response was a somewhat neutral 2.618 with 57-3 per­ cent of the respondents either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The Council was also relatively indecisive concerning Item 83, stating that the ideal form of academic governance is one in which there is a maximum degree of student participation limited only by the legitimate demands of the faculty. The Council's mean score on this item was 2.580 with 59-1 percent disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Reflecting upon one year of Academic Council student involvement, the members of the Academic Council tended 249 to agree, but by a small margin, that the addition of students has had little impact on the decisions reached by the Council (Item 26), and that this participation has had little impact on the priorities of the institution (Item 21). The mean scores for Items 26 and 21 were 2.451 and 2.167 respectively. The Council tended to disagree slightly with Item 24, that Academic Council student participation had made the Council more receptive to innovation. The mean score was found to be 2.589 with 54.4 percent disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement• In the interviews, the problem of size appeared again to be perceived as a source of difficulty. One Academic Council member stated that any governmental body of 154 people must establish such strict procedures that effective discussion is deterred. Another Council member expressed cynicism of the value of the Academic Council by suggesting that if it disappeared, few would notice and a lot of time would be saved. In terms of impact on the Academic Council, all of the interviewed representatives agreed that student participation has made a difference, but this difference has been subtle and indirect. Among the comments con­ cerning the student representatives' impact on the Academic Council were the following: "There has been a sensi­ tization of the Council to student concerns." 250 "The students have gained the perception that they are part of the system." "The main thrust of the impact of Academic Council student participation has been to sensitize administrators and faculty to student viewpoints. In this regard, the influence of the minority and women students have sub­ stantially exceeded the number of seats alloted to them." "Student positions, at least have been considered, where they might not have been previously." With respect to the proportion of students to faculty and administrators on the Academic Council, a strong majority of 72.1 percent of the respondents agreed that the present ratio should be maintained (Item 18), and 87-4- percent affirmed that the percentage of students should not be increased (Item 27)- When asked to describe the position of the students, faculty, and administrators to an increase in the ratio of students to non-students on the Academic Council, more than 70-0 percent of the Council members felt strongly that such an increase would be opposed by the faculty (Item 62), opposed by the administrators (Item 63), but would be welcomed by the student body (Item 60). This series of items indicates that the Council perceives the students' view on this issue from a much different perspective than do the faculty and administrative representatives. The Council was in­ decisive with respect to Item 37* stating that the student 251 representatives would benefit greatly from some form of instruction in the history and philosophy of American higher education. The next group of items dealt with comparisons of the various component groups of the M.S.U. Academic Council. The majority of the responding members of the Council agreed that the graduate student representatives are more sophisticated than the undergraduate represen­ tatives (mean of Item 56 = 2.573), but less so than either the faculty representatives (mean on Item 57 = 2.369), or the administrative representatives (mean on Item 58 = 2.190). The majority of the Academic Council respondents also believe that the faculty members attend meetings more regularly than do the student members (mean on Item 77 = 2.4-62), and that the administrators do likewise (mean on Item 78 = 2.317). With regard to the at-large selection of minority and women student representatives to the Academic Council, the responding Council members recorded a mean of 2.293 on Item 4, indicating approval of the selection of student representatives on the basis of college affiliation rather than from the campus at large. The Council reaffirmed this opinion by their responses to Items 80 and 81. The Council's mean scores of 2-707 and 2.889 indicate dis­ agreement with statements that the minority and women student Council members selected from the campus at—large, 252 represent their constituents better than do those students selected through their academic colleges (Items 80 and 81). An administrator on the Academic Council commented that the Tact that the minority and women student representa­ tives have had little impact on the Council should be taken in a complementary way— that race or sex has not been a decisive issue. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The 1972—73 academic year was particularly signifi­ cant at Michigan State University in that it began a new era in the academic governance of that institution. For the first time, students were represented by voting graduates and undergraduates at the highest University decision-making body— the Academic Council. The purpose of this investigation was to survey the members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council in order to attempt to ascertain the attitudes of the Council members with regard to one year of formal student involve­ ment at this level. The primary source of data was a questionnaire com­ posed of 99 forced choice Likert-type items. The instru­ ment was designed to gather attitudinal information on four broad topics and on some specific aspects of the M.S.U. plan. These four topics included the following: Academic Freedom; Administrative Efficiency; Community Cohesion; and Educational Value. 253 In addition to the 254 questionnaire data, 12 interviews were held with Academic Council members who did not respond to the instrument. These interviews produced information supplementary to the questionnaire and also provided a means for testing the representativeness of the respondents to the Academic Council as a whole. The data from the questionnaires was then used to test for differences among the component groups of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council. On each of the four scales, the members of the Academic Council were classi­ fied and compared in the following ways: 1. Administrators vs. faculty vs. students. 2. Undergraduate students vs. graduate students. 5. Long-term faculty (more than two consecutive years of Academic Council membership) vs. short-term faculty. 4. Liberal arts affiliates (all administrators, faculty, and students affiliated with the liberal arts disciplines) vs. natural science affiliates, vs. non—affiliates, vs. social science affiliates. 5- Liberal arts administrators vs. natural science administrators, vs. non-affiliated administrators, vs. social science administrators. 6. Liberal arts faculty vs. natural science faculty, vs. social science faculty. 7. Liberal arts students vs. natural science students, vs. social science students. The selected statistical, techniques used for testing for equality of population means were the one-way analysis of variance followed b y the Scheffe * post hoc procedure whenever appropriate. Xn addition, the group means and 255 distribution of responses of the entire Academic Council and the differing component groups were descriptively discussed. Academic Freedom A total of 25 items dealt with the impact of Academic Council student participation on the climate of academic freedom at Michigan State University* Academic freedom is here defined as the absence of, or protection from, such restraints or pressures that create, in the minds of the members of the academic community, fears and anxieties which may inhibit free and responsible study, investigation, discussion, or publishing. Stated more positively, academic freedom refers to a climate suppor­ tive of free and responsible academic pursuits. (164-) The analysis of variance and Scheffe' operations produced the following significant differences on the Academic Freedom scale: 1. The student representatives to the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council have significantly more positive attitudes toward the relationship between Academic Council student participation and academic freedom than do the faculty representatives, the administrative representatives, and the combined group of faculty and administrative Council r epr es ent at iv e a • 256 2. The graduate student members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council have significantly more positive attitudes toward the relationship between Academic Council student participation and academic freedom than do the undergraduate student Academic Council members. 3- The social science faculty representatives to the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council have significantly more positive attitudes toward the relationship between Academic Council student participation and academic freedom than do the liberal arts faculty representatives, and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives. The Academic Freedom scale proved to be the greatest source of differences among the various component groups of the Academic Council. This scale is comprised of nine general statements followed by eight statements, each of a specific decision-making area. With respect to these specific areas, the respondents were asked to express their attitudes concerning the appropriate student role in each of these areas, first for undergraduates and, secondly for graduates. The Academic Council felt that its student members have important insights to make concerning faculty evaluation, that they understand the academic values of the University, and that they are more interested in improving programs than in determining what is to be 257 taught. With respect to the question of whether or not Academic Council student participation has resulted in more accurate appraisals of educational practices, the Council was evenly divided. On each of these items, the social science faculty representatives held more positive attitudes than did their liberal arts and natural science counterparts. The graduate students were more positive than the under­ graduates with respect to the ability of students to contribute to the evaluation of faculty teaching competence. The student representatives tend to respond more favorably than the faculty on this same item and more favorably than both the administrative and faculty representatives with regard to their perception that more accurate appraisals of educational practices have taken place as a result of Academic Council student participation. The Academic Council as a whole disagreed with statements such as, Academic Council student participation has lowered the faculty*s prestige and has threatened the academic freedom of the faculty. They further dis­ agreed with those items suggesting that students have not exercised their voting privileges responsibly. The student representatives, generally perceived fewer negative con­ sequences of Academic Council student participation than did either the faculty or the administrators. The respon­ ses of the social science faculty representatives to items 258 of this type were, for the most part, more favorable than the responses of the liberal arts and natural science faculties. With respect to the appropriate decision-making role of students in specific areas, the Academic Council con­ sistently approved of both graduate and undergraduate voting student representation when matters dealing with curriculum and general University policy are being made. Examples of this type of decision-making include evaluation of faculty teaching effectiveness, reconsideration of institutional priorities, assigning credit hours to courses, and making curriculum and course content decisions. Each of these items showed inter-group differences consis­ tent with the ANOVA and Scheffe* results. In each case, the student representatives advocated wider student invol­ vement than did the faculty and administrative represen­ tatives. The graduate students and the social science faculty representatives also consistently advocated a broader student role in these areas than did undergraduate students and liberal arts and natural science faculty repre­ sentatives respectively. The Academic Council did not feel that either voting graduate or voting undergraduate student representation was appropriate in a number of areas specifically relating to faculty concern. These areas included establishing and revising faculty hiring and promotion guidelines, 259 establishing and revising guidelines for approval of faculty research, and determining faculty salaries. In each case, the student representatives, and particularly the graduate student representatives, advocated a much wider student role than did the faculty or administrative representatives. In each case, the student representa­ tives approved of voting student involvement while the faculty and administratives did not. The social science faculty representatives generally were more positive than their liberal arts and natural science counterparts with respect to student involvement in areas of primarily faculty concern, but they too tended to reject voting student representation in these areas. Administrative Efficiency The fundamental issue raised in the 22 items com­ prising the Administrative Efficiency scale was whether or not Academic Council student participation has made a difference in the efficiency of the decision-making pro­ cess at Michigan State University Academic Council. And if so, has this difference added to or detracted from the Academic Council governance process. The analysis of variance and Scheffe* procedures for determining and locating differences among population means produced statistically significant evidence con­ cerning the following difference: 260 The social science faculty representatives to the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council have significantly more positive attitudes toward the relationship between Academic Council student participation and administrative efficiency than do the liberal arts faculty representatives. The members of the Academic Council felt that the incorporation of voting student representatives has brought new insights and information before the Council which might not otherwise have been considered, but at the same time, they disagreed with the statement that further increases in Council student participation would bring additional insights. The Council further did not feel that productive insights have been contributed by the minority and women student representatives at-large. On each of these items, the social science faculty repre­ sentatives held more positive attitudes than the liberal arts faculty representatives. With respect to the present structure of the Academic Council, the members felt that the student representatives would be better prepared to contribute to Academic Council decision-making if they were required to serve on a lower level decision-making body prior to holding membership on the Council. The Council soundly rejected suggestions that students be granted either academic credit or a salary for Council service. The Council expressed agreement that the quality of the 1972-73 student representatives has been high. students were perceived as having fulfilled the The 261 responsibilities or Council membership, and as casting their votes on the basis of carefully considered evidence. While the Council felt that the inexperience of students has made governance more time consuming, they disagreed with the statement that the great complexity of academic governance precludes meaningful contributions by student representatives. In general, the social science faculty representatives responded more positively to items of this type than did the liberal arts faculty representatives. With respect to the performance of the student representatives during 1972-73i the Academic Council felt that many of the student concerns might be handled more effectively at the lower levels of university governance, and that the short-range interests and concerns of students pose difficulties when the long-range interests of the institution are at stake. The Council responded with strong disagreement to a statement that students are easily intimidated. But, they were evenly divided on statements suggesting that the student members have been indifferent on many important issues, that the student members conscientiously prepare for Council meetings, and that student members tend to be open and flexible. The Council also expressed doubt with respect to statements that student participation has facilitated implementation of policies and regulations and that further increases in student representation would improve the quality of 262 decisions rendered. The social science faculty repre­ sentatives continued to be more favorable toward Academic Council student participation than the liberal arts faculty representatives. Community Cohesion The 19 items of the Community Cohesion scale related primarily to subjective factors such as cooperation, communication, satisfaction, trust, and acceptance among the members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council. The major thrust of these items was to assess these subjective factors in relation to the students, faculty, and adminis­ trators who held membership on the Academic Council of Michigan State University during the 1972-73 academic year. A summary of the differences detected on the analysis of variance and Scheffe' procedures is as follows: 1. The members of the 1972—73 Academic Council affiliated with the social sciences (students, faculty, and administrative personnel) had sig­ nificantly more positive attitudes toward the relationship of Academic Council student partici­ pation and community cohesion than did the liberal arts affiliates, and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science affiliates. 2. The social science faculty representatives to the 1972—73 M.S.U. Academic Council had signifi­ cantly more positive attitudes toward the rela­ tionship of Academic Council student participa­ tion and community cohesion than did the liberal arts faculty representatives and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives. 265 The majority of the members of the Academic Council felt that the administrators, faculty, and students who are members of the Council work together harmoniously and cooperatively and that the student members feel free to express their views and do so without difficulty or intimidation. The responding Council members felt that the current plan for Academic Council student participa­ tion constitutes more than token representation, but that the student members are not satisfied with their present role in Council decision-making. The Academic Council further expressed their feelings that student participation at this level has encouraged constructive student action, has made the Council's decisions more acceptable to the student body, and that faculty confidence in the Judgement of both undergraduate and graduate students has increased. The Council strongly felt that faculty and administrators have become more aware of the needs and concerns of the student population, and they agreed that many of the differences between students and non-students have been reconciled outside of Council meetings. The responses of the Council were evenly divided with respect to the question of whether or not greater trust has developed among administrators, students, and faculty as a result of Academic Council student participa­ tion. The Council members did not feel that student 264 - involvement; at this level has promoted communication among non-member students, faculty, and administrators, nor did they feel that it has reduced the potential for campus violence. They did not feel that the student represen­ tatives are effective in communicating their Council experiences to their constituents, but they also dis­ agreed with the statement that the student members repre­ sent their constituents less well than do the non— student Council members. The Academic Council members strongly agreed that the selection of student representatives on the basis of their college affiliation rather than by at-large elections, provides for greater academic repre­ sentation and should be continued. The responses of the differing Academic Council component groups were generally consistent with the ANOVA and Scheffe' results. The responses of the social science facility representatives indicated attitudes that were more positive than either the liberal arts faculty representatives or the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives. The differing affiliated groups responded similarly. Educational Value The ten items comprising the Educational Value scale were designed to measure the attitudes of the Academic Council with regard to the new educational opportunities made available to the student members of the Academic 265 Council. Only one statistically significant difference was detected on this scale. The faculty representatives and the combined group of faculty and administrative representatives to the 1972-75 Academic Council had significantly more positive attitudes toward the Academic Council as a source of educational experiences for students than did the student representatives. The Academic Council was indecisive with regard to a statement that Academic Council student participation is best considered in terms of its educational benefits for its student members. Strong majorities agreed, however, that student participation develops student maturity and responsibility through out-of-class contact with faculty and administrators and, that it has stimulated student appreciation for the complexities of academic governance. The Council also agreed that the student representatives have become more mature by being involved in the making of important decisions, that they have acted more responsibly in recent meetings than in the initial meetings, and that they have become more knowledge­ able about the concerns of faculty and administrators. A strong majority of the members of the Academic Council viewed the student representatives as deeply concerned and sincerely interested in participating in academic governance. A smaller majority agreed that the student representatives are viewed primarily as learners by their non-student colleagues. 266 A strong majority of the Academic Council members agreed that the Council's bureaucratic machinery has discouraged many students on the Academic Council. The Council also agreed, but by a smaller majority, that the long separation in time between decisions and consequences of decisions, works against educational benefits for students. Each of these differences on the individual items were consistent with the ANOVA and Scheffe* results. General Items Among these items were a number of statements relating to student participation at the Academic Council level from very broad points of view. Because elements of more than one of the four scales are contained in most of these questions, no testing for population mean differences was undertaken. The members of the Academic Council tended to dis­ agree slightly with the suggestion that the students of today are much more capable of contributing to the academic decision-making process than those of earlier generations. They were fairly evenly divided between agreement and disagreement with respect to statements that Academic Council student participation has had little impact on the decisions reached by the Council, and that Academic Council student participation has made the Council more receptive to innovation. The Council expressed agreement with the thought that Academic Council student 267 participation has had little impact on the priorities of the institution. Concerning the proportion of students to non-students on the Council, the response indicated a favorable atti­ tude to the present structure, adding that further increases in student representation would be applauded by the students, but disapproved by the faculty and administrators. The Council also indicated, by a slight majority, that student representatives would benefit greatly from some form of instruction in the history and philosophy of U.S. higher education. The Academic Council members tended to perceive the graduate student members of the Council as more sophis­ ticated than their undergraduate counterparts. The Council also agreed that many faculty members tend to vote with the students and against their faculty colleagues. The members of the Academic Council disagreed with statements that the at-iarge student representatives represent their constituents better than do those student members selected through their academic colleges. Conclusions Academic Freedom As might be expected, the responses of the student members of the Academic Council tended to advocate a much broader role in academic governance than did either 268 the faculty or administrative representatives. In cer­ tain areas, however, which have traditionally been under the authority of the faculty, the students tended to agree, but less emphatically, with their administrative and faculty colleagues, that voting student involvement is inappropriate. Examples of these areas include matters dealing with faculty salaries, promotion, and approval of research tasks. The social science faculty representatives were found to be significantly less pessimistic than either the lib­ eral arts faculty representatives or the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives with respect to the consequences of Academic Council student participation on academic freedom. Since no statistically significant difference was detected between the social science faculty representatives and the natural science faculty, it can be assumed that most of the dif­ ference between the social science faculty representatives and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives was contributed by the liberal arts faculty representatives. The difference between the undergraduate and graduate student representatives proved somewhat surprising. The graduate student representatives consistently advocated greater authority for the student members than did the undergraduate representatives. However, the relatively 269 small percentage of responses, particularly from the graduate student representatives, may cast doubt as to the validity of these findings. In any event, the dif­ ferences detected among the students, faculty, and adminis­ trative members of the Council appear to be amplified by the extremely positive responses of the graduate student respondents. One of the conclusions that can be drawn from the individual items is that the quality of participation of the student representatives to the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council has been generally perceived as quite high. The members of the Council feel that the student representa­ tives are capable of making important contributions to the decision-making process at the Academic Council level, although occasionally they do not always do so. There was little difference among the student, faculty, and administrative members of the 1972-73 Acade­ mic Council with respect to perceptions regarding the student members' understanding of academic values and with student interest in improving programs rather than determining what is to be taught. The Academic Council perceives its student members as not acting in ways detrimental to the concept of academic freedom. The Council has not felt that student participation, within the established parameters, has threatened the climate of academic freedom at Michigan 270 State University* While these findings can be inter­ preted as a vote of confidence in the sophistication and responsibility of the student representatives, it could also be viewed, in part, as an indication of the diversity of attitudes among the student members* As indicated in the interviews, many of the student representatives seem to belong to interest groups that occasionally vote as a unit on issues. These student interest groups or factions oppose one another at times, thereby accounting for the Council's perception that the student representatives do not generally vote together in a block* The items dealing with specific decision-making areas, and the appropriate student role in these areas, appear to be the major source of the statistically signi­ ficant differences found among the component groups of the Academic Council. There was little difference in Council attitudes with respect to graduate and under­ graduate participation in each of the selected decision­ making activities. In most cases, the Council's mean score for graduate students was slightly lower than that of the undergraduates, indicating a slightly more positive attitude toward increased decision-making authority for graduates than for undergraduates* For both undergradu­ ates and graduates, the attitudes of the Academic Council with regard to the proper student role in academic 271 governance appears to conform closely to the parameters set by the "Taylor Report." Administrative Efficiency The only statistically significant difference detected among the various Academic Council component groups on the Administrative Efficiency scale took place between the liberal arts and social science facility representa­ tives* The social science faculty group responded signi­ ficantly more positively with respect to the relationship between Academic Council student participation and adminis­ trative efficiency. The largest differences between these groups occurred on statements such as the following: the complexity of academic governance precludes meaningful student contributions; the student representatives gener­ ally decide their stand on a given issue on the basis of the evidence rather than on the opinions of influential non-students; and students conscientiously prepare for Academic Council business. In each case, the social science faculty responded much more favorably toward Academic Council student participation than did the liberal arts faculty. Perhaps equally significant as the differences with respect to the Administrative Efficiency scale were the lack of differences. There were no significant differences detected among the administrators, faculty, and students who hold membership on the 1972—73 Academic Council, nor 272 among the long-term and short-term faculty representa­ tives, There were also no significant differences detected among the administrators, affiliates, and students, classi­ fied according to their broad academic areas. The Academic Council agreed that student participa­ tion has made academic governance a more time-consuming affair. However, there was also an indication that the increase in time of decision-making may well be more of a function of size than of student participation. As in the previous section, the majority of the Academic Council was found to be in general agreement that its student members are capable of making important contributions. Most of the administrators, faculty, as well as students, who are members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council, view student representatives as con­ tributing to the efficiency of governance by supplying new insights and information. However, the Council con­ tinued to reaffirm its present proportion of students to non-students by responding that an increase in student involvement would not contribute additional valuable input. The Academic Council did not feel that the women and minority student representatives have had a major impact on academic governance. Several of those Council members interviewed commented that the at—large student represen­ tatives have had a subtle impact and that their very presence often reminds the Council of its obligation to 273 serve in the best interest of the entire academic community. In addition, the provision of an additional channel for communication and input was considered extremely important by many of those interviewed* The Academic Council does not believe that the com­ plexity of governance precludes meaningful student con­ tributions, but at the same time, they tended to agree that the student representatives are not immediately prepared to make major contributions. Most of the Council indicated that some prior departmental or college level governance experience should be a prerequisite for student Academic Council participation. Other expressed attitudes included greater staff support and resources for the stu­ dent members and an expanded Elected Student Council. The Academic Council appears to feel that some type of orien­ tation or support system is needed to maximize student contributions. There was strong disapproval expressed by the Academic Council with respect to granting either salaries or academic credit to students in return for Academic Council service. Community Cohesion The differences detected on the Community Cohesion scale were found to lie among those component groups classified according to academic affiliation rather than among the groups classified according to academic status. The faculty representatives affiliated with the social 274 sciences were found to be more favorably impressed than their liberal arts counterparts with respect to the relationship between Academic Council student participa­ tion and community cohesion. The social science faculty representatives were also found to be significantly more positive than the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives. The social science faculty representatives were not found signifi­ cantly different than the natural science faculty repre­ sentatives. This leads to the assumption that the difference between the social science and liberal arts faculty representatives was the major contribution to the difference detected between the social science faculty representatives and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives. Significant differences were also detected among the affiliated groups, i.e., groups composed of students, faculty, and administrators in each of the broad academic areas. As was the case in the comparison of faculty groups, those members affiliated with the social sciences had significantly more positive attitudes toward Academic Council student participation and its effect on community cohesion than either the liberal arts affiliates or the combined group of liberal arts and natural science affil­ iates. Again, there was no difference detected between the social science and natural science affiliates. This 275 indicates that the major contribution to the significant difference detected between the social science affiliates and the combined group of liberal arts and natural science affiliates was made by the liberal arts affiliates. Equally significant is the fact that students, faculty, and administrators were not found to be different on this scale, and that each group, in general, agreed that Academic Council student participation promotes community cohesion. The responses of the Council to the individual items provides evidence that Academic Council student participa­ tion has generally resulted in improvements in intergroup and interpersonal relationships, understanding, and lines of communication among the administrative, faculty, and student representatives. While this development indicates that progress has been made toward a more closely knit academic community at the Academic Council level, no such development appears to have occurred beyond the Council. A possible source of contention appears to exist among the student, faculty, and administrative represen­ tatives to the Academic Council. The current structure of the Council is generally perceived as going beyond token representation, but at the same time, the student members are not satisfied with their present role in 276 Council decision-making, presumably due to the limitations established by the "Taylor Report." The evidence warrants the general conclusion that Academic Council student participation has resulted in greater confidence, communication, and respect among the students, faculty, and administrators who hold membership in the 1972-73 M-S.U. Academic Council. Educational Value The analysis of variance and the Scheffe' operations produced statistical evidence that there is a difference among the administrators, faculty, and students with res­ pect to the Educational Value scale. Further, the adminis­ trative and faculty representatives perceived the Academic Council experiences as a much more important source of educational experiences than did the student representa­ tives. This was the only significant difference detected among the various component groups of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council. The Academic Council tended to view student partici­ pation at this level of governance as means of developing student maturity and responsibility through the sharing of responsibility with faculty and administrators. They also perceived the student representatives as ready, willing, and interested in pursuing these opportunities despite drawbacks such as the long separation of time 277 between decisions and consequences, and the massive bureau­ cratic Council machinery. The student representatives tended to disagree more frequently than their non-student colleagues with the statement that Academic Council student participation is best considered in terms of its educational value for the student members. Surprisingly enough, they were also less agreeable with respect to the statement that the student members are deeply concerned and sincerely inter­ ested in participating in academic governance. The greatest difference, however, occurred on the statement that the student representatives have acted more respon­ sibly in recent meetings than in initial meetings. The student representatives reacted much more negatively than either the administrative or faculty representatives, indicating perhaps that the students feel that they have acted responsibly from the beginning of their term of office. Discussion The results of this study indicate that a number of important differences exist among the members of the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council with respect to student participation at that level. There were significant differences detected among the administrative, faculty, and student representatives on the Academic Freedom scale and on the Educational Value scale. With respect to the 278 Academic Freedom scale, the student representatives were much more likely to view the current plan for Academic Council student participation as supportive of the concept of academic freedom and, more likely to advocate expansion of student authority than were the faculty and adminis­ trative representatives. On the Educational Value scale, the faculty and administrative representatives saw Academic Council student participation as a much more valuable source of educational experiences than did the student representatives. More surprising, however, were the differences detected among the faculty representatives to the 197273 M.S.U. Academic Council affiliated with the liberal arts, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. The social science faculty representatives were more positive than their liberal arts counterparts with respect to their response on the Academic Freedom scale, on the Administrative Efficiency scale, and on the Community Cohesion scale. The social science faculty representa­ tives were also more favorable than the combined group of liberal arts and natural science faculty representatives on the Academic Freedom and Community Cohesion scales. The inter-faculty differences on the Community Cohesion scale appear to have contributed substantially to the difference on this same scale detected among all members of the Council affiliated with the liberal arts, natural 279 sciences, and social sciences. These findings contrast sharply with those of* Enos, who in 1971 found no difference among the M.S.U. faculty populations affiliated with these same academic areas. (54-:211-212) A number of possible reasons for the differences found in this study could be advanced for further testing by subsequent researchers. It is possible that in rela­ tion to the findings of Enos, the social science faculty Council members, for some reason, are less representative of their constituents than are their liberal arts or natural science faculty counterparts. It also could be possible that the social science faculty representatives could have been more favorably impressed with Academic Council student participation than their faculty colleagues, and that they have developed a more positive outlook as a result of their experiences with student involvement in academic decision-making. It could also be noted that the liberal arts x'elaied disciplines have the longest history and tradition in American higher education. And for this reason, perhaps the faculty representatives associated with the liberal arts disciplines tend to hold more tradi­ tional views toward academic governance than the repre­ sentatives of the other academic areas. No differences were found between the long-term and short-term faculty representatives on any of the four scales. It was felt that the experience of being actively 280 involved in the long hours of discussion and compromise might have affected the attitudes of those partici­ pating. The actual findings indicate, however, that this was not the case. In the Enos study conducted in 1971, the populations of M.S.U. faculty and administrators perceived under­ graduates as much better prepared and much better suited for involvement in curricular issues than in faculty personnel concerns. (54-J209) The results of this investi­ gation substantiate that the same is true for those faculty and administrators holding membership on the Academic Council. Although the Academic Council rated its graduate student representatives slightly higher than its under­ graduate representatives with respect to their ability to contribute to the governance process, this difference is probably not meaningful. The majority view of the M.S.IT- Academic Council, including the faculty representatives, is that the student representatives have contributed to the academic governance process. But this seems to have taken place in a subtle and indirect way. The student representatives have made their faculty and administrative counterparts more aware of the student point of view. They have added new insights and information to the decision-making process along with freshness and vitality. They have opened new channels for constructive student action. From the interviews, 281 it was learned that; very few Issues were brought before the Council which directly concerned students, and there­ fore, in most cases, their special insights and perceptions were not fully utilized. However, the fact that they were voting participants, present during the discussions, and expressing their views, the students appeared to have been a significant, but subtle, factor. The presence of students tended to impart among the faculty and adminis­ trative members, an awareness of student concerns, thereby indirectly making the Council atmosphere more student centered. Aside from Hook's contention that students have an underdeveloped sense of the importance of educational questions (78:65)* the 1972-73 M.S.U. Academic Council agreed that its student representatives understand the necessity of promoting and preserving academic values. The processes by which the various M.S.U. academic colleges select their student representatives has been shown to be quite effective. The faculty and administrative represen­ tatives have indicated their confidence in the ability of the student representatives to contribute to the academic decision-making process in many areas, with the notable exception of faculty personnel and research decisions. As a whole, the Academic Council, and most notably its student representatives, tend to agree with Schwarty who contends that the area in which the student critics 282 can be most effective is that area in which tne profes­ sional biologists, historians, and economists who compro­ mise the teaching faculty, are least prepared, that is in the area of teaching effectiveness, (165:62) The majority of the Academic Council, and particularly the social science faculty representatives, agree with McGrath's contention that in this area, the student representatives are sufficiently sensitive and qualified to make meaningful contributions by bringing forward new insights and pers­ pectives. (106:52-53)« But at the same time, the majority Council opinion closely parallels a section of the 1966 "Statement of Government of Colleges and Universities" which included the following statement: "Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal." (169) It would appear that any attempt at expanding the student role in these areas traditionally reserved for faculty would meet with strong faculty and administrative opposition. The type of shared meaningful experiences that are necessary to develop a sense of shared purpose appears to have been provided at the Academic Council level by student participation on the Michigan State University Academic Council during 1972-73. The incorporation of 283/ - o / students by the Academic Council has opened channels of communication, understanding, and respect, which have begun to develop an atmosphere in which the academic community can be further developed and strengthened. Student participation at the Academic Council level does not appear to have had the effect on defusing the potential of violent campus disturbance that was reported by McGrath. (107) However, the broader aspects of the relationship between student participation at all levels of academic governance at Michigan State University and student violence were beyond the scope of this investigation and therefore were not considered. In addition, many of the national and international conditions which contributed to student violence during the late 1 9 6 0 's and early 1 9 7 0 's have changed considerably. The majority of Academic Council members perceived student participation in Council decision-making as a valuable resource for the u.evelopiiifcjxj.1. of student maturity and responsibility. The Council further views this personal growth among the student representatives as a consequence of their role as participants with faculty and administrators in the making of important decisions. A potential source of difficulty can be identified with respect to the attitudes of the faculty and administrators toward their student colleagues. Dutton contends that the value of student participation can be maximized only 285 when student;s are perceived as mature and responsible persons with the ability to participate on equal terms with faculty and administrators (4-0:24-). This is evidently not the case with respect to the 1972—73 M.S.U. Academic Council. Majorities of the Council and majorities of each of the administrative, faculty, and student components viewed the student representatives primarily as learners. Recommendations The question of whether students should or should not be permitted to play a significant role in the Academic governance of American colleges and universities has received considerable attention in the recent literature of American higher education. But considerably less has been written concerning implementation of specific programs. This study has attempted to assess the attitudes of those most closely associated with the M.S.U. experiment in Academic Council student participation, the members of the 1972—73 M-S.U. Academic Council. This study was not designed to produce definite solutions to the problems involved with student partici­ pation at the Academic Council level. The nature of the design technically limits all inferences to the 1972-73 Academic Council at Michigan State University. However, if one adheres to the proposition that present events are shaped b y those that have occurred in the past, then it follows that the future will be likewise Influenced 286 by the present. An understanding of present problems and trends would prove helpful in the understanding and possible revision of the governance process at Michigan State University. Evidence from the present; Academic Council members, those most closely acquainted with student participation at this level, should be an accurate indication of the basic workability of the present struc­ ture of the Council. In addition, limited application of these findings could be valuable for other large public institutions considering formal incorporation of students at the highest academic decision-making level. The primary recommendation concerns the need for continued research. The future Academic Councils of Michigan State University should be continuously studied in order to determine ongoing trends with regard to Academic Council student participation. As one Council member noted, one year is far too short a time to accur­ ately assess long-range effects of any major change in academic decision-making policy. The conclusions derived from this study should be considered as hypothetical rather than absolute, and as such, they require continuous verification as conditions at Michigan State change, and as new members gain seats on the Academic Council. It may prove fruitful to limit some of the future studies to those specific scales where more dramatic differences or similarities were discovered. It might prove 287 interesting to study further, and with more depth, those components of the Academic Council which were found to he different during 1 972 - 7 3 In lieu of further research evidence, the following observations could be hypothetically offered concerning M.S.U- Academic Council student participation. The per­ ception of students as mature and responsible persons with the ability to participate, can develop only through successful and responsible actions of the student repre­ sentatives. The data indicates that progress has been made in this direction and that the colleges have been effective in sending an exceptional group of student representatives to the Academic Council. Efforts toward maintaining the high quality of student representation should be continued in the future. Such efforts should continue to provide the type of Academic Council experi­ ences conducive to improved decision-making and recognition of a unity of purpose. While this investigation has provided evidence that the members of the M.S.U. Academic Council have generally been favorably impressed with the one-year experiment in student participation, they firmly rejected increases in student authority in matters pertaining directly to faculty personnel concerns, the exclusions incorporated into the "Taylor Report." It is apparent that no increases in the 288 student role in this type of decision-making is feasible without evidence of considerably greater faculty and administrative support. She data indicates that the student representatives are not immediately able to contribute to the decision­ making process. This suggests that some type of program be established to provide student representatives with the Academic governance orientation necessary to enable them to contribute more quickly to Academic Council decision-making. The members of the Academic Council tended to be indecisive with respect to providing some form of instruction in the history and philosophy of American higher education, but a strong majority favored requiring students to serve on a college or departmental, decision-making body prior to serving on the Council. Another promising approach came to light during the inter­ views. A number of Council members suggested that some type of additional staff support should be made available to the student representatives. This could take the form of assigning individuals experienced in Academic Council affairs to act as resource people for answering questions, briefing the student representatives, and generally playing a supportive role. Each of these suggestions, as well as others, should be carefully considered as a means of promoting Academic Council efficiency. 289 The continuing attempt to determine appropriate student roles in academic governance has made progress during the 1972-73 Michigan State University academic year. These efforts must he grounded upon whatever is thought needed to create and maintain an environment within which the goals and objectives of the institution are most likely to be realized. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY "AAUP Balks at Bylaw Flaws." June 3* 1970, p. 2. Michigan State S e w s , Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State Uni— yersityT A report on tiie Faculty Committee on Student Affairs to the Academic Council. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, January 10 , 1967 . "Academic Senate OKs Revised Taylor Report." State N e w s , May 20, 1971* P - 1. Michigan "Academic Senate to Decide Fate of Participation Report." Michigan State N e w s , January 19* 1971* p. 1 . "Adams Backs Changes." 19, 1969* P. 1Adams. Valter. 1971- Michigan State N e w s , November The Test. New York: The Macmillan Co.. Ad Hoc Committee Report on Student Participation in Academic Governance^ Gerald Massey* Chairman. Michigan i^tate University, East Lansing, Michigan, June 5* 1969* (Mimeographed). Antes, Richard. "Involving Students in University Governance." NASPA I X . July, 1971* P* 4-8—56. Armacost, Peter H. "Student Personnel Administration Policies," in the Handbook of College and Univer­ sity Administration. Voll TZ Ac ad emi c , Knowle s , X s a S T Ced.). New”'York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970* 7-17 - 7-35"A3MSU Sues to Stop Taylor Report Action." State N e w s . February 5* 1971* P- 1. Michigan Benezet, Louis T. "Continuity and Change: The Need for Both." The Future Academic Community: Continuity and Change. John Caffrey (ed.j: Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969290 291 12 Berdie, Ralph F. "A Note on the Government or Uni­ versities." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 1 0 , No. 3', September ,”1969, " 337------ 13 Blandford, Barbara A. "Student Participation on Institutional Governing Boards." Higher Educa­ tion Panel Report, American Council on Education, Survey No. 11, October 27, 1972. 14 "Board Sends Bylaw Proposals Back for More Alterations." MSU News Bulletin, April 1, 1971* P* 1* t 15 Borg, Walter R. Educational Research; An Introduction. New York: David Pickay Co. In c . 1965- 16 Bowen, Harold R. "Governance and Educational Reform," Agony and Promise. G. Kerry Smith (ed.), San Vrancisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969* 17 Brewster, Kingman, Jr. "The Politics of Academia." speech by the President of the Yale Political Union, September 24, 1969, (Mimeographed). 18 "Buckner Denounces Report." Michigan State N e w s , January 12, 1971* P- 1- 19 Butler, William R. "The Meaning of Community— One Point of View." NASPA, January, 1970, p. 131-141. 20 "Bylaws Changed; The Next Stop: Trustees." News, January 26, 1971* P- 2. 21 Caffrey, John. "The Future Academic Community?" The Future Academic Comjniin-i t y - John Caffrey T a d - )- Was'h'in.gtori: A MSU faculty American Council on E d uca— tion', '1969, P- 1-1522 Caff rey, John. "Prediction for Higher Education in the 1970*s." The Future Academic Community. John Caffrey, (e d •), Washington: American Council on Education, 1969, P- 261—292. 23 Chickering, Arthur. Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., JPubY£sHers, 1969. 24 "Colby Constitutional Convention." The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 13, 1 9 6 9 , p . 7 . 25 Cole, Joseph. "Student Involvement in Institutional Governance." Speech given at the 1968 NASPA Convention, (Mimeographed). 292 26 Corson, John J. "A Management Consultant's View: Social Change and the University." Saturday R e view, January 1 0 , 1970, p. 76. 27 Corson, John J. "Prom Authority to Leadership." The Journal of Higher Education, XL (March, 1969), -------------p 7 '181-192.---- 28 "Council Action Not Expected." MSU Faculty N e w s , November 4, 19&9, p. 1, 9- 29 "Council Debates Report." 1970, p. 1, 3- 30 "Council Expected to Act on Proposals." Michigan State N e w s . February 1, 1971» P* 3* 31 "Council OKs Bylaw Changes." 1970, p. 1 , 4. 32 "Council Rejects Board 'Intrusion'." Bulletin. April 22, 1971? P- 4-. 33 The Cox Commission Report. Crisis at Columbia. York: Random House Vintage Books, 1969• 34 Cutler, Richard L. "The New Role of the Student in the Academic Society." An address presented at the 21st National Conference on Higher Education. Chicago, March 13* 1966, (Mimeographed). 35 Deegan, William L . , Drexel, Karl 0., Collins, John T . , and Keraey, Dorothy L. "Student Participation in Governance." Junior College Journal. Vol. 41, No. 3* November, 1 9 7 0 , p. 13 — 2 2 . 36 "Delayed Implementation of Report Seen Possible." Michigan State N e w s . April 22, 1971- P* 1- 37 Dewey, John. Problems of M e n . phical Library, 1946. 38 Dill, William R. "Decision Making." Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. Griffiths, Daniel E. (.ed. j , Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1964, p. 199-222. 39 "Draft Statement on Student Participation in College and University Government." AAUP Bulletin, Spring, 1970, p. 33-35. MSU Faculty News, November 10, MSU Faculty News. May 19. MSU Faculty News- New York: New Philoso­ 293 40 Dutton, Thomas B . , et. a l . Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected M embers ot th e Ac ademi c Community. A ^ p e c iT a T n R e p o r^ - o ir ^ tH e ^ ll[5 P A - T H !vTsTon™ *oT™ H esearch and Program Development, April, 1970. 41 Dykes, Archie R. Faculty Participation in Academic pecision-Making. Washington, D .O .: American Council on Education, 1968. 42 Editorial. "Another Round Begins for the McKee Report." Michigan State N e w s , June 24, 1970, p. 4. 43 Editorial. "Council Chicanery Merits Student Censure." Michigan State N e w s , November 25 * 1970, p. 4* 44 Editorial. "Entrenching the Faculty at Students* Expense." Michigan State N e w s . December 2, 1970, p. 4. 45 Editorial. "For Both Our Readers, We Conclude an Editorial." Michigan State N e w s . January 19, 1971, P- 4. 46 Editorial. "McKee Report is Back, But Not Emasculated." Michigan State N e w s . February 27, 1970, p. 4. 47 Editorial. "Needed: Commission to Revamp the Channels." Michigan State N e w s . January 12, 1971* P- 4. 48 Editorial. "Student Participation: Now an Illusive Dream?" Michigan State N e w s . January 18, 1971* p. 4. 49 Editorial. "Students Lack Control Over Student Docu­ ment." Michigan State N e w s . December 1, 1970, p. 4. 50 Editorial. "Taylor Not Perfect, But..." State N e w s . May 21, 1971* P- 4. 51 Editorial. "Taylor Report: Lesson in U's Official Channels." Michigan State News. January 6. 1971. -------------p. 4. 52 Editorial. "Titanic Council: A Sinking Ship." Michigan State N e w s . December 3, 1970, p. 4. 53 Elliott, Lloyd H. "Changing Internal Structures: The Revelance of Democracy." The Future Academic Community. John Caffrey (ed.;, Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969, p. 44-55. Michigan 294 54 Enos, Brian Richard. "An Examination of Michigan State University Faculty and Academic Administra­ tors' Opinions Regarding Undergraduate Student Involvement in Selected Academic Decision-Making Matters." An unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1971- 55 Etzioni, Amatai. M o d e m Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: i?rentice-Hall Inc., thirteenth printing. 56 Fedore, Robert Ryvan. "An Evaluation of the Report on the Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University." Unpublished doctoral disser­ tation, Michigan State University, 1969- 57 Finn, Jeremy D. "Jeremy D. Finn's MultivarianceUnivariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance: A Fortian IV Program." East Lansing: Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University, March, 1970, (Mimeographed). 58 Foote, Caleb, e t . a l . The Culture of the University: Go v e rnance ancT~Educatlan. San Francisco: JosseyBass I n c ., P u b l i s h e r s , T968. 59 Frankel, Charles. Education and the Barricades. New York: W . W. Norton and Company, inc., ±9&8- 60 "Freedom R e p o r t Reviewed." M i c h i g a n State N e w s , Welcome Week, September” 1968. 61 Friesen, Walter S. "Toward Community in Higher Educa­ tion." An address given at Michigan State University, July, 1967* (Mimeographed). 62 "From Massey to Taylor: Two Views." January 12, 1971» P- 1, 4. 63 Gallagher, Buell G. MSU Faculty N e w s , "Who Runs the Institution?" in O r d e r and Fre e d o m on the C a m p u s . Edited by Owen itnorr a n d W. John Minter. Boulder, Colorado: W e s t e r n Interstate C o m m ission for High e r Education, October, 1969, p. 89-95- 64 Gallagher, Buell G. "Student Unrest." The American Student and His College. Edited by Esther M. Lloyd-.)ones and Herman A. Estrin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1967, p- 291-298. 295 65 Garner* William Harold. "Student Involvement in Collegiate Governance." The MSU Orient* Vol. 4-, No. 3, Spring-Siimmer* l9£>9» P* 2-15* 66 Glass* Gene V. and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychologyl Englewood Cliffs; New Jersey! "TFen^l&e'-TTa'lT* Inc., 1970. 67 Glendening* Linda. "Post Hoc: A Fortran IV Program for Generating Confidence Intervals Using Either Tukey or Scheffe* Multiple Comparison Procedures." East Lansing: Office of Research Consultation* College of Education* Michigan State University, January, 1975, (Mimeographed). 68 Gross, Edward* and Grambach, Paul 0. University Goals and Academic Power. Washington, D.U.: American Council on Education, 1968. 69 "Gould Foresees Hope and Accomplishment Arising from Today's Agony of Nation's Universities." The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 6, 1969, p. 6. 70 "Governing A College— How Much Should Students Have To Say?" College Management. IV, May, 1969, p. 50-60. 71 Haig* Frank R.. "Institutional Academic Freedom." Liberal Education. LIV* December, 1968, p. 533—539• 72 Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965- 75 Henderson, Algo D. "Control in Higher Education: Trends and Issues." The Journal of Higher Education. XL, January^ 1969, p. 1-11. 74 Henderson, Algo D. The Innovative Spirit. San Fran­ cisco: Jossey-Bass, inc., i^ubllshers, 1970. 75 Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Students and an Intellectual Community." Educational Record, XLIX, Fall, 1968, p. 598-406. 76 Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Who Decides Who Decides?" Agony and Promise. Edited by G. Kerry Smith, San Francisco! Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969, p- 139144-. New 296 77 Hoffman, Stanley. "Participation in Perspective?” Daedalus: The Embattled University, XCIX, Uinber,~T970, p . 177-221.----------* 78 Hook, Sidney. Academic Freedom and Academic Anarchy. New York: D e l t a books, 1 9 6 9 . 79 Hook, Sidney. "The Architecture of Educational Chaos.” Phi Delta Kappan, LI, 2, October, 1969* P* 68—70. 80 Hook, Sidney. "Conflict and Change in the Academic Community." Papers prepared for the NASPA 52nd Annual Conference, Sheraton-Boston Hotel, April 1—4, 1970, p. 5-15- 81 Hook, Sidney. "Harold Taylor's Evasions." Phi Delta Kappan. LI, December, 1969, p- 197-198. 82 H o m e r , James T . , and H o m e r , Rosemary L. "Student Involvement in Governance and Administration of Higher Education." NA S P A . Vol. 4, No. 2, October, 1966, p. 59-64. 83 Howard, John A. "First Lecture." Who Should Run Universities? Rational Debate Seminars, Waabington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1969, p. 1-34. 84 Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "Restructuring the Governance of Higher Education." AAUP Bulletin. Winter. 1970, p. 371-374. 85 Jencks, Christopher and Reisman, David. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 1968. 86 Jennrich, Robert I. "1064 Analysis of Variance." Madison: University of Wisconsin Numerical Analysis Department Laboratory Bulletin, May 15, 1961, (Mimeographed). 87 Johnstone, D. Bruce. "The Student and His Power." The Journal of Higher Education. XL, No. 3, March, 1969, p 2 O 3 — 219 - 88 "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students." Liberal Education. LIV, March, 1968, p. 152-158. 89 Keeton, Morris. Shared Authority on Campus. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1971- 297 90 Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1967- 91 Kerlinger, Fred N. "Student Participation in Univer­ sity Education Decision Making." The Record, LXX, October, 1968, p. 4-5-51. 92 Kerr, Clark. "Governance and Functions." Daedalus: The Embattled University, XCIX, Winter" 1970, p.- l o H - m '. ---------- 95 Keys, Ralph. "Student Involvement: The Why and How." NASPA, VI, October, 1968, p. 77-82. 94 Knock, Gary H. "Institutionalizing Student Participa­ tion in the Academic Community." Journal of the NAWDC, Summer, 1971* P - 171— 175- 95 Lewis, Lionel S. "Two Cultures: Some Empirical Findings." Educational Record, XLVIII, Summer, 1967, P- 260-267- 96 Lewy, Guenter, and Rothman, Stanley. "On Student Power." AAUP Bulletin. Fall, 1970, p. 279-282. 97 "Longest Council Meeting for McKee Report Action." MSU Faculty N e w s . March 10, 1970, p. 1- 98 Lunn, Harry H ., J r . The Student’s Role in College Policy-Making. Washington: American Council on Education, 1957- 99 Mash, Donald J. "Participation in Campus Governance: A Stimulant or Depressant?" NASPA, Vol. 9, No. 4, April, 1972, p. 288-29T; 100 "Massey Expresses Surprise at Misunderstanding of Report." Michigan State N e w s . November 19, 1969, p. 1 • 101 "Massey on the Massey Report: The Product of Consen­ sus." MSU Faculty N e w s . January 1$, 1970, p. 4. 102 "Massey Report Remains Unacceptable to Council." Michigan State N e w s . November 4, 1969, P- 1. 10$ Mayhew, Lewis B. Colleges Today and Tomorrow. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1 9 6 9 . San 298 104 Mayhew, Lewis B. "Faculty in Campus Governance." Agony and Promise. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. San Francisco-Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969, p. 145160. 105 Mayhew, Louis B. "Students in Governance— A Minority View." Students in the University and in Society. Whiteley, John n. (ed.), Washington, D. c.: Student Personnel Series No. 15, American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1971* 106 McGrath, Earl J. Should Students Share the Power? Philadelphia: temple University Press, 1970. 107 McGrath, Earl J. "Student Governance and Disorder." Change, Vol. 3* No. 3, May-June, 1971* 108 "McKee: Power Loss Feared." June 5* 1970* P* 1* 109 Miller, T. K. and Pilkey, G. P. "College Student Personnel and Academic Freedom for Students." Personnel and Guidance Journal, XVI, June, 1968, P* 954-960. 110 Millet, John D. The Academic Community. McGraw-Hill kook ^ 0 ., inc. 19 111 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. 112 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, May 27, 1969- 113 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 14, 1969* 114 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 21, 1969* 115 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 22, 1969* 116 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 27* 1969* 117 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 28, 1969* Michigan State N e w s , New York: 299 118 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, March 3* 1970* 119 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, March 5* 1970. 120 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, March 12, 1970. 121 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, April 7, 1970. 122 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, May 12, 1970. 123 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, May 15* 1970. 124 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, October 6, 1970. 125 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 3* 1970. 126 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 4, 1970. 127 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 10, 1970. 128 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, November 17* 1970. 1 PQ Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, February 9* 1971* 130 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, April 20, 1971. 131 Minutes of the Academic Council of Michigan State University, June 1, 1971* 132 Minutes of the Academic Senate of Michigan State University, June 3, 1971. 133 Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participa­ tion in Academic Government, MSU, January 29, 1969- 134 Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participa­ tion in Academic Government, MSU, February 12, 1969. — ■ — ■ ^ 300 135 Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Partici­ pation in Academic Government, MSU, February 19, 1969- 136 Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Participa­ tion in Academic Government, MSU, March 5* 1969- 137 Morrison, Robert. The President's Commission on Student Involvement in Decision-flaking: The d^hairman's leport. Ithaca: cornel J. university, June" IT", 19*557---- 138 Newcomb, Theodore. "The Contribution of the Inter­ personal Environment to Student Learning." NASPA Proceedings, 49th Annual Conference, October, 1967, p. 175-178. 139 "Nominating Issue Solved." April 19, 1971, P- 2. 140 "Open Senate Meeting Would Show Good Faith." State N e w s , January 19, 1971, P- 4-* 141 "Panel Appointed to Study Taylor Report Conflicts." Michigan State N e w s . February 22, 1971, P* 1, 10* 142 "Passage Came Easier Than Some Expected." N e w s , January 26, 1971, P- 2. 143 Pinner, Frank. "The Crisis of the State Universities: Analysis and Remedies." The American College. Sanford, Nevitt (ed.), New Itork, John Wiley, 1962. 144 Powell, Robert S., Jr. "Student Power and the Student Role in Institutional Governance." Liberal Education. LV, March, 1969, P* 24-31. 145 "Professionals as a Sacred Cow." Michigan State N e w s . Tuesday Supplement. January lTTJ 19/1. 146 "Proposed Resolution for Academic Senate: Six Questions Concerning 'McKee Committee* Recommen­ dations." Mimeographed Statement distributed to the Academic Senate of Michigan State University on June 3, 1970. 147 "Public Universities React to Unrest with New Rules, Greater Student Role." The Chronicle of Higher Education. February 9, l9Vo. 148 "Report 'Faculty-Supremisist' Drivel." N e w s . December 2, 1970, p. 4. Michigan State N e w s . Michigan MSU Faculty Michigan State 301 149 "Report of the Committee on the Student in Higher Education.” The Student in Higher Education. New Haven: The Hazen foundation, l96fci. 150 Report of the New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Goverhmen~b. James fe. McKlee, chair­ man^ £iast LansinG, Michigan: Michigan State University, February 17« 1970, (Mimeographed). 151 "Report on Campus Called 'Power Grab*." Journal, January 12, 1970, p. 3- 152 "Report Provides A Voice." Michigan State N e w s , February 25, 1970, p. 1. 155 "Report Reinforces Role of Students in "U" Affairs." Michigan State N e w s . May 2, 1969* P» 1* 15- 154 "Report Study Tops List for Trustee Meet." State N e w s , February 19, 1971* P« 3. 155 "Report's Weight Outlined." Michigan State News. January 28, 1970, p. 1. 156 Revised Recommendations Concerning Student Participation in the Academic Governmenti T^he Report o f " the Academic Council. bast Lansing. Michigan: Michigan btate University, Office of the Secre­ tary of the Faculties, December1 3* 1970. 157 Roth, William M. "A University Trustee's View: Dilemmas of Leadership." Saturday Review. January 10, 1970, p. 64. 158 Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and Universit: sit^r: A History. New York: Vintage Books. T93 159 Rudolph, Frederick. "Neglect of Students as a Historical Tradition." in The College and the Student. Dennis, L. E. , and K.aul*fman, J . F . , (eds.), Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. 160 Sanford, Nevitt. Why Colleges Fail. Jossey-Bass, T$&7'. 161 Sax, Gilbert. Empirical Foundations of Educational Research. Englewood Clii4fs, New Jersey: PrenFice-HaTl, Inc., 1968. The State Michigan The San Francisco: 502 162 Schiff v. Hannah, Civil No. 514-7, W. D. Michigan, October 14-, 1965* 165 Schwartz, Edward. "Student Power— In Response to the Questions." The Future Academic Community; Continuity and Change. John Caffrey ted.), Washington, B.C.: American Council on Education, 1969, P* 56-57* 164- See, Harold W. "Academic Freedom and Tenure." Handbook on College and University Administra­ tion— Academic, Knowles, Asa s., Xed.), New York: Kc'Graw-HiTI" Book Co., p. 6-56, 6-76. 165 "Senate Rejects Faculty Bylaw Changes." News, June 50, 1970, p. 4-. 166 Sindler, Allan S. "A Case Study in Student—Univer­ sity Relations." The Future Academic Community: Continuity and Change. Edlhed by John Caffrey. Washington, B.C.: American Council on Education, 1969, P* 119-137* 167 Spolyar, Ludwig J. "Student Power: Threat of Challenge for Student Personnel." N A S P A . VI, October, 1968, p. 74— 77* 168 Stanley, Julian C. "Reliability." Educational Measurement. Thorndike, Robert' Qed. ) , Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971, P* 356-44-3. 169 "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities." Joint statement from the AAUP, ACE, AGBUG. Washington, D.C.: AAUP (Reprint from the Winter, 1966 issue of the AAUP Bulletin.) 170 Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education. New York: The free Press, ly65. 171 "Student Initiated Curricular To Be Adopted at Brown University." The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 16, 1969, P - 172 "Student Participation: How Much, How Many?" MSU Faculty N e w s , November 11, 1969* p* 2. 173 "Student Participation Report Passes with Some Changes." MSU Faculty N e w s , November 24-, 1970, p. 2. MSU Faculty 303 174 "Students Are Gaining More Say in Governance, But; Yale's Brewster Questions the Trend." The Chronicle of Higher Education, October ^ 1969, P-_ 3- 175 "Students Cite Strengths." Michigan State N e w s . January 15, 1971, P- 1, 15- 176 "Students Gain Stronger Voice in Campus Decision Making." The Chronicle of Higher Education, ------------March 24, 1 % 9 , P- 11---- 177 Taylor, Harold. "Students, Universities, and Sidney Hook." Phi Delta Kappan, LI, December, 1969, p. 195-196. 178 Taylor, Harold. "The Student Revolution." Phi Delta Kappan, LI, October, 1969, P» 62-£>7. 179 "Taylor Report a Foot in the Door." News, January 19, 1971, P* 4. 180 "Taylor Report Necessary." Michigan State News, January 25, 1971, p. 4. 181 "Taylor Report: No Viable Outlet." News, January 19, 1971, P* 4. 182 "Taylor Report Under Fire From ASMSU Student Panel." Michigan State N e w s . January 28, 1971, P- 1- 183 "The Debate Goes On: Council Passes Two Sections of Taylor Panel Report." MSU Faculty N e w s . November 10, 1970, p. 1. 184 Michigan State Michigan State ’The Scranton Report." The Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 2, October, 1970, p. I--24. 185 "The Student1s Role Expands..." January, 1970, p. 12-14. College Management. 186 "Three Institutions Pick Students As Trustees." The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 16, 1969, p. 12. 187 "Three Trustees to Study Report." News, March 2, 1971, P« 1. 188 Tos i , Henry L . , and Carroll, Stephen. "Management l>y Objectives." Personnel Administration. July-August, 1970, p. 44—48. Michigan State 304 - 189 Tripp, Phillip A. "Organization for Student Per­ sonnel Administration." Handbook of College and University Administration* Vol. it Academic, Knowles, Asa S. (ed.,), New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, p. 7-3 - 7-16. 190 "Trustees Unanimously OK Student Participation." Michigan State H e w s , March 3, 1967- 191 "U Committee Studies Student Participation." State M e w s . March 3* 1967- 192 "USAC Undecided on Plans for Council Representatives." Michigan State N e w s , April 12, 1971* P- 3- 193 Vaccaro, Louis C. "Power and Conflict in the Univer­ sity: A Search for Solutions." College and University. XLIV, Fall, 1968, p. 97-TD7- 194- Williamson, E. G., and Cowen, John L. The American Student's Freedom of Expression. Minneapolis: The University oi Minnesota Press, 1968. 195 Wrenn, Robert L. "The Authority Controversy and Today's Student." Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLVI, June, 1 % 8 , p. 'bW=bbT.--- 196 Young, Kenneth E. "The Coming Conflict Between Students and Faculty." N A S P A . V, January, 1969* p. 277-282. " Michigan APPENDIX A 155 Student Services Building Michigan State University East I>ansing, Michigan 48823 APPENDIX A Dear For the past several years, the attention of many of us in the Michigan State University community has been focused on the issue of student partici­ pation in the university academic decision-making process. Indeed, this has been an issue receiving critical attention throughout the country. Because of your unique experience in working with students, faculty, and administra­ tors, at the highest level of academic governance at Michigan State University, you are in a position to make a valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge in this area. The purpose of this study is to survey the opinions of the members of the 1972-73 MSU Academic Council regarding student participation in academic governance at the Academic Council level. The results of this investigation will serve as the foundation for a Ph.D. dissertation in the Department of Administration and Higher Education. The study has been endorsed by my doc­ toral committee and approved through the Office of Institutional Research and the Office of the President. While this study is separate and distinct from the institutional evaluation to be conducted after May 19, 1973, the results will be made available to subsequent researchers, and should be helpful in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of certain aspects of the current MSU experiment in student participation in academic governance. Specifically you are asked to read carefully the instructions preceding each section and indicate your response on the separate answer sheet. Please use a soft lead pencil when responding. Be assured that your opinions will be treated in a confidential manner. The coding number that appears at the top of the answer sheet and questionnaire is to be used in identifying in­ dividuals and subgroups for follow-up and comparison purposes. Respondents will not be grouped according to affiliation with any specific university department, college, or discipline. The identity of the respondents will remain completely anonymous. Your completing and returning the instrument and the answer sheet in the enclosed campus mail envelope by Monday, February 26, 1973 will be greatly appreciated. I would be happy to forward to you a copy of the ab­ stract of the completed study. Should you like such a copy, or should you wish to comment on this study, please use the available space on the back page of the questionnaire. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Yours truly, Thomas B. Shipley APPENDIX B 306 155 Student Services Building Michigan State University APPENDIX B Dear A few weeks ago, I forwarded to you a copy of a questionnaire de­ signed to elicit some of your opinions regarding the present scheme for involving students in the academic governance process at M.S.U. at the Academic Council level. You were selected as a participant on the basis of your first hand experiences in working with students, faculty and ad­ ministrators on the Academic Council. 1 am sure you can appreciate how important it is for each council member to complete and return the in­ strument so that the data will be as complete and representative as possible. 1 am currently at a standstill in my dissertation research because of a low rate of return from my first distribution. In the event that you did not receive the original questionnaire through some oversight on my part, or it has been misplaced, a duplicate copy is enclosed. I would be very grateful if you could take a few minutes to complete it and re­ turn it to me in the enclosed envelope as soon as possible. If you would like an abstract of the completed study, or should you wish to register additional opinions regarding the study or issue, please use any avail­ able space to so indicate. As pointed out in my previous letter, this study has been cleared through the appropriate university channels and will serve as the foun­ dation of my PhD dissertation in the Department of Administration and Higher Education. The opinions of individual respondents will be treated in a confidential manner and respondents will not be identified or grouped according to their affiliation with any specific department or college. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Thomas B. Shipley APPENDIX C APPENDIX C 507 A SURVEY OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE 1972-73 MEMBERS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ONE YEAR OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE Section I: General Statements Directions: Listed below are a number of statements that could possibly describe aspects of the MSU Academic Council following one full year of student participation in academic governance. The four response alternatives represent values ranging from 1 to 4 on a numerical scale. Please mark the numerical val­ ue of the response alternative which most closely represents the extent to which you agree with that particular state­ ment. The response alternatives with their numerical values are as follows: 1_ - Strongly Agree with the statement 2_ ** Agree with the statement 3^ = Disagree with the statement 4^- Strongly Disagree with the statement PLEASE USE A SOFT LEAD PENCIL AND RECORD YOUR RESPONSE ON THE SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET. (1) The students of today are much more capable of contri­ buting to the academic decision-making process than those of earlier generations. (2) The bureaucratic machinery, which often appears endless, has discouraged many students on the Academic Council. (3) The student members of the Academic Council often have difficulty articulating their opinions in council meetings. (4) The selection of student representatives on the basis of college affiliation (as opposed to an at-large selection process) makes these student members more accountable to their constituents. 2308 cn ■ o H (0 (D iH Q O fD I believe that student participation at the Academic Council level: 4 (5) has brought insights before the Council which otherwise would probably not have been considered. 4 (6) has encouraged constructive student action. 4 (7) has stimulated student appreciation for the complexities of academic governance. 4 (8) is best considered in terms of its educational value for the student members. 4 (9) develops student maturity and responsibility through out of class contact with faculty and administrators. 4 (10) has reduced the potential for violent campus disruption. 4 (11) has promoted coinnunication among students, faculty, and administrators who are not Council members. 4 (12) has made the decisions of that body more acceptable to the student body. 4 (13) has promoted greater trust among students, faculty, and administrators. 4 (14) Those women students, selected from the campus at-large, often bring productive insights before the Academic Council which might not otherwise have been considered. 4 (15) Those minority students, selected from the campus atlarge, often bring productive insights before the Academic Council which might not otherwise have been considered. 4 (16) At the present time, faculty, students, and administra­ tors who are members of the Academic Council work to­ gether harmoniously and cooperatively. 4 (17) Since students have attained voting privileges, a higher level of trust has developed among students, faculty, and administrators. 4 (18) The present proportion of students to non-students on the Academic Council should be maintained. -3- 509 o* h H* • w &> > n n> (V tn P iQ H (V IV 2 3 IV (V C/1 •^ o Hui P in « (V n> 4 T^ie present plan for involving students in academic gover­ nance at the Academic Council level: (19) not otherwise have been considered. 2 3 4 (20) tions. 2 3 4 (21) stitution. 2 3 4 (22) ation. 2 3 4 (23) practices. 2 3 4 (24) 2 3 4 (25) 2 3 4 (26) Council. (27) There should be a higher percentage of students on the Academic Council. (28) Student Academic Council members have important in­ sights and contributions to make to decisions involv­ ing the teaching competence of faculty members. (29) The inexperience of students in academic decision­ making affairs has resulted in a more time-consuming governance process. (30) The student members of the Academic Council have been indifferent on many of the important issues. (31) Many of the student concerns might be better accommo­ dated at the lower levels of academic governance. (32) The short-range interests and concerns of students pose difficulties when the long-range interests of the institution are at stake. (33) Students usually tend to vote on issues in collective blocks. - 4- 310 Disagree to I believe that most of the student representatives to the Academic Council: u H W 0> ( > (T D 1 2 3 4 (34) are more interested in improving programs than in determining what is to be taught. 1 2 3 4 (35) understand the value of promoting and protecting op­ portunities for the learning and discovery of truth. 4 1 2 3 4 (36) are satisfied with their present role in academic governance. 1 2 3 4 (37) would benefit greatly from some form of instruction in the history and philosophy of U.S. higher education. 1 2 3 4 (38) conscientiously prepare for the business to be con­ ducted during Academic Council meetings. 1 2 3 4 (39) are deeply concerned and sincerely interested in participating in academic governance. 1 2 3 4 (40) tend to be open and flexible. 1 2 3 4 (41) have fulfilled the responsibilities that accompany the rights of membership. 1 2 3 4 (42) have become more knowledgeable about the concerns of faculty and administrators. 1 2 3 4 (43) represent their constituents less well than do the non-student council members. 1 2 3 4 (44) feel free to express their views on institutional policy. 1 2 3 4 (45) are effective in communicating their council experi­ ences to their constituents. 1 2 3 4 (46) carefully consider the evidence on both sides of an issue before casting their votes. 1 2 3 4 (47) have acted more responsibly in recent meetings than in initial meetings. 1 2 3 4 (48) generally decide their stand on an issue on the basis of the evidence rather than on the opinions of influ­ ential non-students. - 5- 311 V fl «n 3* •n u o o ee in a H‘ • W (V a Hin tn tv f» ID in M o re The quality of the governance process at the Academic Council level would significantly improve if: 1 2 3 4 (49) students were required to serve on a college or de­ partmental decision-making body prior to serving on the Council. 1 2 3 4 (50) students were paid a small salary for their service to the institution. 1 2 3 4 (51) students were granted Academic credit for service to the institution. Most of the student members of the Academic Council are able to make major contributions to academic governance: 1 2 3 4 (52) immediately. 3 4 (53) after a minimum of three months of Academic Council service. 1 2 3 4 (54) after a minimum of six months of Academic Council service. 1 2 3 4 (55) after a minimum of nine months of Academic Council service. 1 2 Most of the graduate student representatives to the 197273 Academic Council: 2 3 4 (56) are more sophisticated than most of the undergraduate representatives. 2 3 4 (57) are less tives . 2 3 4 (58) are less sophisticated than roost administrators on the Council. sophisticated than most faculty representa­ -6- 312 J° &> O? E H-. Agree in pi tn £ •” 1 believe that further increases in student participation at the Academic Council level: ID o Htn Pi in n ID (D 2 3 4 (59) threaten the academic freedom of the faculty. 2 3 4 (60) would be welcomed by the student body. 2 3 4 (61) would bring valuable new insights before the Council. 2 3 4 (62) would be opposed by the faculty. 2 3 4 (63) would be opposed by the administrators. 2 3 4 (64) would improve the quality of decisions rendered. (D (0 h id Most student members of the Academic Council: 1 2 3 4 (65) have developed maturity by being involved in the making of important decisions. 1 2 3 4 (66) are viewed primarily as learners by their non­ student colleagues. 1 2 3 4 (67) are easily intimidated by their non-student colleagues. (68) Because students hold the balance of power when the non-student vote is split# students should not have voting privileges. (69) The great complexity of academic governance precludes meaningful contributions by student representatives. (70) Students have no greater right to a voice in academic governance than does an apprentice in the field of an expert craftsman. (71) Many of the more student-oriented faculty representa­ tives tend to vote with the students and against their more traditional faculty colleagues. (72) The best hope for continued improvement in academic programs lies in gaining the contributions of all members of the academic community. ft * > tQ H a a O Hin 3a (0 313 CO • o (-*■ (D (73) Faculty confidence in the judgement of undergraduate students has increased. (74) Faculty confidence in the judgement of graduate students has increased. (75) Many of the differences between students and non­ students on the Academic Council have been reconciled outside of Council meetings. (76) Faculty and administrators on the Academic Council have become more knowledgeable about the needs and concerns of the student population. (77) The faculty members on the Academic Council attend council meetings more regularly than do student members. (78) The administrators on the Academic Council attend council meetings more regularly than do student members. (79) The selection of student representatives on the basis of their college affiliation rather than by at-large elections, provides for greater academic representa­ tion and should be continued. (80) Those minority student council members selected from the campus at-large, represent their constituents better than do those students selected through their academic colleges. (81) Those women student council members, selected from the campus at-large, represent their constituents better than do those student members selected through their academic colleges. (82) The long separation in time between decisions and consequences of decisions, works against educational benefits for students. (83) The ideal' form of academic governance is one in which there is a maximum degree of student participation, limited only by the legitimate demands of the faculty. -8514- Section II. Specific University Decision-Making Areas Directions: On the basis of your experience with student participation at the Academic Council level, please indicate the role in which students could best contribute to promoting and protecting academic excellence regardless of whether or not they pre­ sently participate in that particular activity. The four response alternatives represent possible student roles rang­ ing from 1 to 4 on a numerical scale. Please mark the numer­ ical value of the response alternative which most clearly represents the proper student role in each of the specific decision-making areas indicated below. The response alterna­ tives with their numerical values are as follows: 1_ =* Strong Involvement. At least one-third of the voting members are students. a Moderate Involvement. Students actively participate with voting privileges but less than one-third of the members are students. 3_ =* Advisory Involvement. Students are involved in the decision-making process in advisory or consulting capacity without voting privileges. = No Involvement. Students are not involved in either an advisory or voting capacity. Each item represents a specific decision-making area. Please consider each item twice, first as it applies to involvement by undergraduate student representatives, and secondly, to graduate student representatives. Making decisions concerning curriculum and course content. 2 2 3 3 4 (84) Undergraduate students. 4 (85) Graduate students. Establishing and revising guidelines for hiring and promoting faculty. 1 2 3 4 (86) Undergraduate students. 1 2 3 4 (87) Graduate students. - 9- 315 = Strong Involvement: Moderate Involvement Advisory Involvement 4 = No Involvement Establishing and revising guidelines for the approval of faculty research tasks. 2 3 4 (88) Undergraduate students. 2 3 4 (89) Graduate students. Revising admissions criteria. 2 3 4 (90) Undergraduate students. 2 3 4 (91) Graduate students. Reconsidering institutional priorities. 2 3 4 (92) Undergraduate students. 2 3 4 (93) Graduate students. Developing guidelines for assigning credit hours to courses. 2 «■* 4 (94) undergraduate students. 3 4 (95) Graduate students. Developing procedures for evaluating faculty teaching effectiveness. 2 3 4 (96) Undergraduate students. 2 3 4 (97) Graduate students. Determining salaries for individual faculty members. 2 3 4 (98) Undergraduate students. 2 3 4 (99) Graduate students. APPENDIX D APPENDIX D 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 317 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY April TO; Academic Council FROM: Ad Hoc Co m m i t t e e Government SUBJECT: 1. on Student P a r t icipation C o m m i t t e e ’s R e p o r t Government History of the 23, on Student C o m m i t t e e 1s 1969 in A c a d e m i c Participation in A c a d e m i c Report. O n N o v e m b e r 5, 1 9 6 8 t h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l d i r e c t e d t h e C o m m i t t e e on C o m m i t t e e s t o s e l e c t a n a d h o c c o m m i t t e e " t o s t u d y t h e m a t t e r o f student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a c a d e m i c g o v e r n m e n t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y , notably w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e f r e e d o m o f u n i t s o f t h e University to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or not s t u d e n t m e m b e r s w i l l b e g i v e n the r i g h t t o v o t e " . T h e Ad H o c Com mit tee was called together on J a n u a r y 15, 1 9 6 9 a n d w a s d i r e c t e d t o r e p o r t t o t h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l in s u f f i c i e n t t i m e f o r t h e C o u n c i l t o r e p o r t o n t h e m a t t e r a t t h e Spring S e n a t e m e e t i n g . The Ad Hoc Committee was instructed that its r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s s h o u l d e m b r a c e t h e f o l l o w i n g : "number of student r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , m a n n e r o f s e l e c t i o n , a n d c a p a c i t y " . (Quotations a r e t a k e n f r o m t h e l e t t e r o f t h e C h a i r m a n o f t h e Steering C o m m i t t e e t o t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e A d H o c C o m m i t t e e . ) The Ad H o c C o m m i t t e e c o n s i s t e d o f 8 f a c u l t y m e m b e r s , 3 u n d e r g r a d u a t e stude nts , a n d t w o g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s . The Committee elected a c h a i r m a n o n J a n u a r y 15, 1 9 6 9 a n d s e t a b o u t i t s t a s k . The Committee resolved to d e v o t e s e v e r a l m o n t h s t o c o l l e c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the e x t e n t , n a t u r e , a n d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a c a d e m i c g o v e r n m e n t a t M . S. U . a n d o n o t h e r c a m p u s e s . Letters requesting s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n w e r e s e n t t o a l l d e a n s , d e p a r t m e n t chair men , c h a i r m e n o f c o l l e g e a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e s , e t c . The C o m m i t t e e is g r a t e f u l f o r t h e l a r g e n u m b e r o f r e s p o n s e s i t r e c e i v e d , and to t h e O f f i c e o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h f o r a s s i s t a n c e i n evaluating them. Simultaneously with collecting information, the Committee r e f l e c t e d o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y a n d t h e r o l e st ud en ts o u g h t t o p l a y t h e r e i n . The recommendations formulated below r e p r e s e n t t h e C o m m i t t e e ' s c o n s e n s u s o n t h e r o l e s t u d e n t s should h a v e i n a c a d e m i c g o v e r n m e n t a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . C o m m i t t e e ' s Re p o r t on SPAG A p r i l 23, 1S6S Page T w o 2. T h e C o m m i t t e e 1s R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . Preamble. It is e s s e n t i a l t o t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y that f a c u l t y , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , a n d s t u d e n t s p e r c e i v e o n e a n o t h e r a s mature, f e l l o w c i t i z e n s o f a n a c a d e m i c c o m m u n i t y t h e c o m m o n g o o d o f which it is t h e j o i n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f a l l t o s e e k a n d p r o m o t e . V.'e b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s j o i n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e q u i r e s t h a t s t u d e n t s , faculty, a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l l h a v e a n e f f e c t i v e v o i c e i n t h e forma tio n a n d a d o p t i o n o f a c a d e m i c p o l i c i e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e U n i v e r ­ sity. And we think t h a t b o t h the sense of c o m m u n i t y and the effectiveness o f s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n is b e s t a c h i e v e d b y b r i n g i n g students, in s u f f i c i e n t n u m b e r s , i n t o t h e e x i s t i n g p o l i c y - m a k i n g and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g b o d i e s a n d c o m m i t t e e s o f d e p a r t m e n t s , s c h o o l s , co lle ges a n d t h e U n i v e r s i t y , r a t h e r t h a n b y p r o l i f e r a t i n g p a r a l l e l student a d v i s o r y g r o u p s . General R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . Recommendation 1 : Every administrative unit of the University shall h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e x t e n d v o t i n g p r i v i l e g e s o n i n t e r n a l matters (Cf. B y l a w s o f t h e F a c u l t y , 1 . 2 . 1 ) t o a n y m e m b e r o r members o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y c o m m u n i t y . Recommendation 2 : s t u d e n t s shall, in g e n e r a l , any b o d y o r c o m m i t t e e o n w h i c h t h e y s i t . be given vote on (We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f g r a n t i n g v o i c e w i t h o u t v o t e t o students s e r v e s n o u s e f u l p u r p o s e , b u t t e n d s o n l y t o c r e a t e d i s ­ trust, to w e a k e n t h e s e n s e o f c o m m u n i t y , a n d t o r e d u c e t h e effectiveness a n d v a l u e o f s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ) Recommendation 3 : The university learning experience shall be u n d er st oo d b r o a d l y e n o u g h t o e n c o m p a s s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a c a d e m i c government. Accordingly, the University Educational Policies C o mm it te e s h a l l p r e p a r e a r e p o r t t o t h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l o n whether a c a d e m i c c r e d i t s h o u l d b e g i v e n f o r s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t i c i p a ­ tion in a c a d e m i c g o v e r n m e n t a n d , i f so, o n t h e k i n d o f c r e d i t a n d the m a n n e r a n d c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h i t s h a l l b e a w a r d e d . Recomme n d a t i o n s concerning University— level Academic Government Recomme n d a t i o n In a d d i t i o n to its d e a n a n d e l e c t e d f a c u l t y representatives, e a c h c o l l e g e s h a l l b e r e p r e s e n t e d o n t h e A c a d e m i c Council b y o n e v o t i n g s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ( o n e f o r e a c h c o l l e g e ) who is s e l e c t e d b y s t u d e n t s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e s a p p r o v e d i } C o m m i t t e e ' s Report on SPAG ^ A p r i l 23, 1S69 Page Three by the v o t i n g f a c u l t y o f t h e c o l l e g e . The selection procedures i should be d e v e l o p e d b y t h e C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l in c o o p e r a — ■ tion with any e x i s t i n g c o l l e g e s t u d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Recommendation 5 : In a d d i t i o n to t h e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a ­ tives m e n t i o n e d in r e c o m m e n d a t i o n 4, t h e r e s h a l l b e t h r e e v o t i n g undergraduate s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s — a t - l a r g e and t w o v o t i n g graduate s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s - a t — l arge on t h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l . The u n d e r g r a d u a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s - a t - l a r g e s h a l l b e s e l e c t e d in accordance w i t h p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y A s s o c i a t e d S t u d e n t s of I Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . The graduate representatives-at-large shall be s e l e c t e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y the Council o f G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t s . Recommendation 6 : O n e s t u d e n t , to b e e l e c t e d a n n u a l l y b y t h e student m e m b e r s o f t h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l f r o m a m o n g t h e i r o w n n umber, shall serve as a v o t i n g m e m b e r of t h e S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e of th e University. Recommendation 7 : T h e a p p e l l a t i o n " f a c u l t y s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e " shall be c h a n g e d to " u n i v e r s i t y s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e " . On each university s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e t h e r e s h a l l b e v o t i n g s t u d e n t members in t h e n u m b e r s p r e s c r i b e d b e l o w . Undergraduate student committee m e m b e r s s h a l l b e s e l e c t e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e s established b y A s s o c i a t e d S t u d e n t s o f M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Graduate s t u d e n t c o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s s h a l l b e s e l e c t e d in a c c o r d a n c e with p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e C o u n c i l o f G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t s . University C u r r i c u l u m Committee: 3 undergraduates; 2 graduates. University Educational Policies Committee: S undergraduates? 6 gra d u a t e s . University Faculty Affairs Committee: 1 undergraduate; 1 graduate. University Faculty T e n u r e Committee: 2 undergraduates; 1 gr a d u a t e * University C ommittee on Honors Programs: 2 undergraduates; 1 graduate. Of the two u n d e r g r a d u a t e m e m b e r s o f th e C o m m i t t e e o n H o n o r s Programs, one s h o u l d b e a m e m b e r o f t he H o n o r s C o l l e g e o r e n r o l l e d in an h o n o r s p r o g r a m , b u t t h e o t h e r s h o u l d n o t be. The graduate member of this C o m m i t t e e s h o u l d , as a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e , h a v e b e e n enrolled in an h o n o r s c o l l e g e o r p r o g r a m . 320 ; C o m m i t t e e 's R e p o r t on S P A G A p ril 23, 1S6S Page Four University International Projects Committee: 2 under­ graduates; 1 g r a d u a t e . University Library Committee; 2 undergraduates; 2 graduates. University Student A f f a i r s Committee: 2 undergraduates; 2 graduates. 1 Because of c o n f l i c t s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s p u r s u a n t to i m p l e m e n t a ­ tion of the A c a d e m i c F r e e d o m Re p o r t , a r e - e v a l u a t i o n s h a l l b e ;undertaken o f the charge, c o m p o s i t i o n , and f u n c t i o n s of t h e S t u d e n t Affairs C o m m i t t e e and of t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e A c a d e m i c ^Freedom Report. The Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation concerning composition of the S t u d e n t A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e is p r e d i c a t e d o n th e existing s t r u c t u r e and is i n t e n d e d to a p p l y o n l y u n t i l s u c h a r e v a l u a t i o n has b e e n c o m p l e t e d and i m p l e m e n t e d . University C o m m i t t e e on B us i n e s s Affairs: graduate; 1 g r a d u a t e . 1 under­ Recommendation 8 : T h e c o m p o s i t i o n an d f u n c t i o n s o f t h e G r a d u a t e Council should be s t u d i e d and e v a l u a t e d , a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of - the Graduate C o u n c i l to o t h e r a c a d e m i c b o d i e s s h o u l d b e c l e a r l y ;stated in the B y l a w s of t h e F a c u l t y . T h r e e g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s an d _one und ergraduate s t u d e n t s h a l l s i t as v o t i n g m e m b e r s o f t h e ;Graduate Council. The graduate student members shall be selected ■in accordance w i t h p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y th e C o u n c i l of Graduate Students; t h e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t m e m b e r s h a l l b e . selected in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y A s s o c i a t e d Students of M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Working committees i appointed b y the G r a d u a t e C o u n c i l s h o u l d c o n t a i n an e q u a l n u m b e r ;of faculty and s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . The Ad Hoc Committee's :recommendations c o n c e r n i n g t h e G r a d u a t e C o u n c i l ar e p r e d i c a t e d .on the existing s t r u c t u r e and a r e i n t e n d e d to a p p l y o n l y u n t i l the aforementioned s t u d y and e v a l u a t i o n h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d a n d implemented. Rpcommendation 9 : T h e p r e c e d e n t o f m e a n i n g f u l s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a ­ tion set by the p r e s e n t p r o c e d u r e s for the s e l e c t i o n o f a p r e s i d e n t of the U n i v e r s i t y s h a l l b e f o l l o w e d in th e s e l e c t i o n of all jprincipal a c a d e m i c o f f i c e r s of t h e U n i v e r s i t y . |Recommendation 1 0 : E v e r y ad h o c o r s p e c i a l c o m m i t t e e o f t h e |University shall c o n t a i n an a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r o f v o t i n g s t u d e n t imembers to p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . 321 Committee's Report on SPAG A p r i l 23, 1969 Page Five Recom me nda t i o n s conc ernin g C o l l e g e — level A c a d e m i c Governme nt Recommendation 1 1 : In e a c h c o l l e g e , e i t h e r t h e C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y Council s h all h a v e an a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r of v o t i n g s t u d e n t m e m b e r s to provide s i g n i f i c a n t s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r e l s e t h e r e s h a l l be a sep a r a t e D e a n ' s S t u d e n t A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e , o r b o t h . In the event that a c o l l e g e e s t a b l i s h e s a D e a n ' s S t u d e n t A d v i s o r y C o m ­ mittee but d o e s n o t p r o v i d e for s i g n i f i c a n t s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on its C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l , t h e D e a n ' s S t u d e n t A d v i s o r y C o m ­ mittee shall s e l e c t o n e o f its o w n m e m b e r s t o s i t e x o f f i c i o without vo t e o n t h e C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l , a n d t h e C o l l e g e Advisory C o u n c i l s h a l l s e l e c t o n e o f its m e m b e r s t o s i t e x o f f i c i o without v o t e o n t h e D e a n ' s S t u d e n t A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e . Recommendation 1 2 : E a c h c o l l e g e s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e o r ad h o c committee s h a l l h a v e a n a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r o f v o t i n g s t u d e n t members to p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Recommendation 1 3 ; T h e p r o c e d u r e s d e v e l o p e d b y a c o l l e g e fo r faculty c o n s u l t a t i o n in t h e s e l e c t i o n o f its d e a n s h a l l a l s o p r o v i d e for mea n i n g f u l s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Recommendations c o n c e r n i n g D e p a r t m e n t - l e v e l Academic G o v e r n m e n t (S c h o o l - l e v e l ) Recommendat ion .14: E a c h d e p a r t m e n t a l (school) p o l i c y - m a k i n g or decision—m a k i n g o r a d v i s o r y b o d y o r c o m m i t t e e s h a l l h a v e an appropriate n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t m e m b e r s to p r o v i d e for s i g n i f i c a n t student r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r e s h a l l b e a d e p a r t ­ mental (school) T e a c h i n g C o m m i t t e e , t o b e c o m p o s e d of a n e q u a l number of f a c u l t y a n d s t u d e n t s . T h e Tea c h i n g Committee shall advise the d e p a r t m e n t (school) o n p r o c e d u r e s f o r e v a l u a t i n g t e a c h ­ ing, and o n w a y s a n d m e a n s o f i m p r o v i n g b o t h u n d e r g r a d u a t e a n d graduate t e a c h i n g . T h e T e a c h i n g C o m m i t t e e shall submit to the department (school) a n e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y o f a n y person b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d for a p p o i n t m e n t , r e t e n t i o n , p r o m o t i o n , or tenure. Recommen d a t i o n 1 5 : T h e p r o c e d u r e s d e v e l o p e d b y a d e p a r t m e n t (school) for f a c u l t y c o n s u l t a t i o n in t h e s e l e c t i o n of i t s c h a i r m a n (director) s h a l l a l s o p r o v i d e for m e a n i n g f u l s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 322 3. Changes to the Bylaws of C o m m i t t e e ' s R e p o r t on S P A G A p r i l 23, 1.SSt P a g e Six th e F a c u l t y . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the a b o v e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s r e q u i r e s t h a t many c h a n g e s b e m a d e in the B y l a w s of th e F a c u l t y (1968). The substanti al c h a n g e s a r e l i s t e d in e n c l o s u r e (1). The remaining changes are e d i t o r i a l in n a t u r e . Respectfully submitted, Gerald J. M a s s e y Chairman Ad Hoc C o m m i t t e e o n S t u d e n t P a r t i c i p a t i o n in A c a d e m i c G o v e r n m e n t Enclosures: (1) (2) C h a n g e s to th e B y l a w s of the F a c u l t y R o s t e r of the Ad H o c C o m m i t t e e o n S t u d e n t P a r t i c i p a t i o n in A c a d e m i c G o v e r n m e n t ROSTER OF THE AD PARTICIPATION HOC COMMITTEE ON STUDENT IN A C A D E M I C G O V E R N M E N T Bettinghaus, P r o f . E r w i n P. ( F a c u l t y A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e ) Brooks, P r o f . T h e o d o r e J. ( S t u d e n t A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e ) Cummins. Mr. W. R a y m o n d ( C o u n c i l o f G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t s ) Dickmeyer, M r . N a t h a n C. ( S t u d e n t A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l ) Grant, Prof. W. H a r o l d (Comm, o n A c a d . Rts. & R e s p o n s . ) Hughes, M i s s S u s a n S. ( A . S . M . S . U . ) Keller, P r o f . f/aldo F. (Comm, o n A c a d . Rts. & R e s p o n s . ) Kelly, Prof. W i l l i a m V.’. ( D i r e c t o r , H o n o r s C o l l e g e ) Mandelstamm, P r o f . A l l a n B. ( S t u d e n t A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e ) Massey, Prof. G e r a l d J. ( F a c u l t y A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e ) Nonnamaker, P r o f . E l d o n R. (Assoc. D e a n of S t u d e n t s ) Patterson, M r . F l o y d A. ( C o u n c i l o f G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t s ) Schack, M i s s G i n a D. ( U n d e r g r a d u a t e S t u d e n t ) 323 C o m m i t t e e 1s R e p o r t on SPAG A p r i l 23, 1S6S Page Seven Changes to t h e B y l a w s of t h e F a c u l t y - 1S68. Article Change (1) 1*2.2, D e l e t e l a s t t h r e e l ines and s u b s t i t u t e the f o l l o w i n g " a n y m e m b e r or m e m b e r s o f the University community". (2) 1.2,6, Substitute (3) 2,2*4. Ad d the following: " B e c a u s e the d e p a r t m e n t c h a i r m a n h a s a s p e c i a l o b l i g a t i o n to d e v e l o p a d e p a r t m e n t s t r o n g in t e a c h i n g c a p a c i t y , it is a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t s t u d e n t s b e c o n s u l t e d in h i s selection or a p p o i n t m e n t " . (4) 2.3,1. S u b s t i t u t e " s c hool, and of s t u d e n t s , " f i r s t o c c u r r e n c e o f "scho o l " . (5) 2,3,2. A d d t h e f o l l o w i n g : "I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r e s h a l l b e a d e p a r t m e n t a l (school) T e a c h i n g C o m m i t t e e c o m p o s e d o f an e q u a l n u m b e r of f a c u l t y a n d students. T he Teac h i n g Committee shall advise t h e d e p a r t m e n t (school) o n p r o c e d u r e s for e v a l u a t i n g t e a c h i n g , an d o n w a y s a n d m e a n s of i m p r o v i n g b o t h u n d e r g r a d u a t e an d g r a d u a t e teaching. The Teaching Committee shall submit to t h e d e p a r t m e n t (school) an e v a l u a t i o n of t h e t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y of a n y p e r s o n b e i n g c o n ­ s i d e r e d for a p p o i n t m e n t , r e t e n t i o n , p r o m o t i o n , or t e n u r e ." "members" for "faculty". for t h e (6) 3,2.3. Add: " B e c a u s e of t h e d e a n ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to p r o m o t e g o o d t e a c h i n g , it is a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t s t u d e n t s b e c o n s u l t e d in h i s s e l e c t i o n or a p p o i n t m e n t ." (?) 3.5,1. D e l e t e f i r s t o c c u r r e n c e of " f a c u l t y " . A d d the f o l l o w i n g at the e n d o f 3.5.1.: "Either the C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l s h a l l h a v e an a p p r o ­ p r i a t e n u m b e r o f v o t i n g s t u d e n t m e m b e r s to p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , or there shall be a separate Dean's Student A d v i s o r y Committee, or both." 324- Article C o m m i t t e e ' s Report on SPAG A p r i l 23, 1S69 Page Eight Change (8) 3. 5.8. New article: "In the event that a c o l l e g e does not p r o v i d e for s i g n i f i c a n t student r e p r e s e n t a ­ t i o n on its C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y C ouncil, the D e a n ' s Student Advisory Committee shall select one of its m e m b e r s to sit e x o f f i c i o w i t h o u t v o t e on the College A d v isory Council, and the College A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l s h a l l s e l e c t o n e o f its m e m b e r s to sit ex o f f i c i o w i t h o u t v o t e on the Dean's Student Advisory Committee." (9) 4 ,1 .3. Add: (10) 4.2,1, Add: " I t is a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t s t u d e n t s a l s o c o n s u l t e d in t h e s e l e c t i o n o f p r i n c i p a l ac a d e m i c o f f i c e r s of the University. (11) 4.4.1.1. A f t e r "Steering Committee" insert "the designated student representatives." (12) 4,4.1.1.3. R e n u m b e r as 4 . 4 . 1 . 1 . 4 . s u b s t i t u t e " f o u r t h " for "third", and delet e everythin g from "two un d e r ­ graduate" to " G r a d u a t e C o u ncil" inclusive. Insert the following new article 4.4.1.1.3. "The s u b - g r o u p c o n s i s t i n g of the s t u d e n t r e p ­ resentatives shall c o n s titute the Student C o u n c i l ." (13) (14) 4,4.1,2.1. 4.4.4. "It consulted is a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t s t u d e n t s b e in t h e s e l e c t i o n of the P r e s i d e n t . " be A f t e r " A p p o i n t e d C o u n c i l ( 4 . 4 . 1 . 1 . 2 .) " , i n s e r t " a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e S t u d e n t C o u n c i l ( 4 . 4 . 1 . 1 . 3 .) ". R e n u m b e r 4.4.4. as 4.4.5. a n d i n s e r t following new article 4.4.4.: 4.4 . 4 . Number resentatives the a nd S e l e c t i o n of S t u d e n t R e p ­ 4.4.4.1. Each college shall be represented on the A c a d e m i c Council by one student. The s t u d e n t s h a l l b e s e l e c t e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h procedures prescribed by the voting faculty of the college. 325 C o m m i t t e e 's R e p o r t on S P A G A p r i l 23, 1S69 Page N ine Change 4.4.4.2. There shall be three undergraduate student representatives-at-large who shall b e s e l e c t e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e s 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 s e l e c t e d in a c c o r d a n c e wi t h p r o c e d u r e s established b y the Council of Grad u a t e Students. I n s e r t "f aculty*' i n f r o n t Steering Committee," of Insert "the S t u d e n t Council", Faculty Council". "members after of the "Elected S u b s t i t u t e for the first sentence: "The S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e shall be c o m p o s e d of five faculty members elected by the voting faculty of the u n i v e r s i t y for t w o - y e a r terms, w i t h 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. Insert after "organizations" the following: "or individual students or student groups and o r g a ­ nizations" . Substitute "faculty member or student" "member of the A c a d e m i c S e n a t e " . for Throughout 4.6. representatives faculty Throughout committee" 5. , for restrict references and members. to substitute "university standing "faculty standing committee". Substitute "academic government" government". for "faculty 32 6 Article C o m m i t t e e 1s Re p o r t on SPAG A p r i l 23, 1S69 Page T e n 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 (S 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 (26) 5.4. l.l. Add at end of first sentence: representatives." (27) 5.4.1.2. Substitute "faculty representatives" for "representatives." "colleges" for "college faculties." (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) . "and its student Co m m i t t e e ' s R e p o r t on S P A G A p r i l 23, 1969 P a g e E lev en 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. N e w article: " E a c h aid h o c c o m m i t t e e s h a l l c o n t a i n an a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s to provide significant student representation." (30) 8. Throughout, change "faculty " a c a d e m i c g o v e r n m e n t ." (39) 8.3. N e w article: "The University shall recognize a s t u d e n t ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a c a d e m i c g o v e r n m e n t as an im po r ta nt and integral p a r t of the university learning experience. "and the Council government" of to APPENDIX E Report of The New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government Introduction In November, 1969, the Ac ademic Council, after extended debate, recom­ mended that the Report of the Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government, submitted to the Council in May student committee for revision. 1969, be returned to a new faculty- Faculty members were to be chosen from the Council by the President, upon recommendation by the Steering Committee of the University. Student members were to be chosen by the President upon re­ commendation from student members and alternate student members of the Academic Council. The following report represents the work of this New Committee on Student Participation in Academic Government since receiving its mandate in November, 1969. This Committee began with the conviction that the discussions in Academic Council clearly indicated substantial agreement that students should be i n ­ volved in the academic decision-making processes of the University. of that participation, the numbers of students to be involved, The nature and the methods to be used to select students were issues on which the New Committee detected considerable disagreement during the debate. Insofar as possible, this report attempts to suggest a resolution of these issues, but it does not always attempt to be as comprehensive or as specific as the original report. Rather, we hope here to suggest some steps toward the involvement of students in academic government which we believe need to be taken immediately. Beyond that, however, we propose establishing the machinery by whicli the system of academic government at Michigan State University can be monitored, This report makes and changes made when desirable. recommendations in five areas: (1) the involvement of - 2 - 329 students within the several departments, the U n iv e rs ity ; C2) colleges, centers and institutes of the involvement of students within the Academic Council; (3) the involvement o f students on various standing committees of the Academic Council; (4) the provision for specific minority student representation in academic government; and (5) the establishment of a new Faculty-Student C o m ­ mittee on Academic Governance; the redefinition of the responsibility of the Faculty Affairs Committee; the redefinition and reconstitution of the Student Affairs Committee. Before moving to a discussion and the recommendations in each of these five areas, we should note that we have made n o recommendations regarding student participation on the Graduate Council. These recommendations, by motion of the Academic Council, will be made separately by the Graduate Council. We should further note that o u r report does not make specific recommendations for changes in the Bylaws of the Faculty designed to accomplish the changes proposed in our report. It is the feeling of the Committee that following action by the Ac ade mic Council on the present report, authorize the Steering Committee of the Council to establish a including the Secretary of the Faculty, that the Council should small committee, to draft the appropriate changes which will be necessary to accomplish w hat e v e r actions are taken by the Academic Council. Part I Student Participation in Academic Government within the Several Departments, Colleges, Centers and Institutes. Shortly after its formation, in Academic Government the New Committee on Student Participation conducted a survey of all departments, of the Academic Council, colleges, members and directors of centers and institutes. In addition, a general request for opinions and information was issued by the Committee. - Our requests were twofold. being involved in the University, 3 - 350 We w a n t e d to find out h o w students were currently academic dec i s i o n - m a k i n g process We also w a n t e d to collect opinions bow students should be involved. gratifying and helpful. Without The on all committees. Most from appropriate sources a tt empting a formal statistical completely parellcl Some units s tructures, while tures with app rox im ate ly equal num ber s still others serve interest. There are a involved students in any way in of the un iversity have developed others have of students student participants serve in t h e i r depart me nts by other students. and college and colleges have deve lop ed some way of d epa rt m e n t s which have not their decision-making processes. for the Some departments have students formally involving s tu dents to some e x te nt in de cision making. few, and only a few, study on the departmental of possibilities. departments about response to o u r request has been both Council, we can state that stud ent in volvement levels runs almost the gamut at Michigan State completely int eg rat ed s t r u c ­ and faculty members. Some and colleges through e le ction O th ers h a v e been s e l e c t e d by faculty n om inations, while as a result o f t h e i r h a v i n g filed petitions Some units ind icating the ir involve only those students w h o are majors w i t h i n the department, while others also ma k e an attempt to invo lve students who are not necessarily majors in the p a r t i c u l a r department. volved undergraduate stu dents Most units have, to date, in­ in commi tt ee work, while a s m a lle r n u m b e r have made an attempt to involve b ot h un de r g r a d u a t e and gr aduate students. In short, at the present time at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y there are examp les of almost every possible type o f a r ran ge men t of stu den t involvement decision-making process at the d epa rtment and college in the academic level. The variety o f these a ppr oaches b e i n g d e v e l o p e d throughout suggests that it w o u l d be un wise to insist n ow on any one model ment of students in the affairs o f departments, colleges, the University for the i n v o l v e ­ centers However, as a result o f the infor ma tio n o b t a i n e d in the surveys, and institutes. and afte r - 4 -351 extensive committee deliberations, we would like to indicate a preference for certain arrangements in regard to (A) The setting up of committees and (11) The Selection of students A. for membership on those committees. The setting up of c o m m i t t e e s . 1. Integrated committee structures seem to be most frequent t h r o u g h ­ out the University, and for reasons stated elsewhere, we believe this to be preferable to parallel 2. committees. (See p. 6 ). We consider that the selection of one student on which there may be, for example, for a committee six faculty members is clearly tokenism, and we would argue for more balanced committee structures. 3. Our survey indicated that far more attention has been paid to involving undergraduate students than graduate students, and we would suggest that departments and colleges include graduate students on the various c o mmi t­ tees of the units involved. 4. We have also n o t e d that most o f the developments reported to us seem to be ad hoc arrangements, not reflected in the bylaws of the departments or colleges, and strongly suggest that such arrangement be codified into written bylaws, B. The selection of students for membership on those c o m m it tee s. 1. We recommend that student members of committees be selected by theirpeers, although other arrangements seem to be working in a few units. 2. We recommend that all students associated with an academic unit be involved in determining the procedures for student participation in the governance of that unit. 3. We strongly believe that the students selected to participate in a given committee of an academic unit should be chosen from a broad base con­ gruous with the constituency of the unit. 4. We recomment that provision be made for specific minority student representation. -5-332 It may indeed be the case that a single model will n e v e r fit all d e ­ partments or colleges; and in any event, until we have more i nformation as to the success of various models, we cannot make extr em ely s pec ifi c r e c o m ­ mendations for the various academic units of the University. commendations p r o p o s e d below, thus, ning which will insure that students the department and college level, are d e s i g n e d to be a beginning, a begin­ are i nvo lve d in academic g ov ernance at and that they are involved, wh ere appropriate, within the various centers and institutes of the University. tions all include The three r e ­ The r e c o m m e n d a ­ reporting proc edu re s to a p ro po s e d ne w F a c ul ty -St ude nt C o m ­ mittee on Academic G o v e r n a n c e whose duties and charges are d e t a i l e d in Part V of the report. We suggest the to monitor efforts formation of the new c ommittee as the device at involving stu dents cess, and to continue to make in the academic d e c i s i o n -m aki ng p r o ­ recommendations in this area. Recommendation I. Each academic department or school w i t h i n the Univ er sit y will develop methods o f 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 d e c i si on- mak in g p roc e s s e s o f that unit, with each unit deciding what makes up its constituency. E.G. , it is assumed that all m a jor s o f a given d epa rtment o r school must b e the c o n s t i ­ tuents of that department or school; but it will remain to be d et e r m i n e d by each unit wheth er it wishes to include m a j o r - p r e f e r e n c e freshmen and s o p h o ­ mores, interested n o - p r e f e r e n c e students, minors, etc. Student constituents of a department or school must be i n v o l v e d in determ in ing the n a t u r e o f the participation to be effected. All departments o r schools will report their arrangements for b r i n g i n g s tudents into the academic d ec isi on - m a k i n g process to the Faculty-Student Comm itt ee on A c a d e m i c Gov ernance by O c t o b e r 1, 19 70. Recommendation 2. Every college w i t h i n the U n i v e rsi ty w ill develop metho ds of involving students, both g rad ua te and u ndergraduate, in the academic d e ­ cision-making processes of that college, with each college deciding what makes up its constituency. Student cons tit uen ts o f a college must be i nvo lv ed in determining the nature of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n to be effected. All colleges will report their arrangements for b r i n g i n g students into the acade mic d e c i s i o n ­ making process to the Fa cul ty -St ude nt Commit te e on A cad e m i c G o v e r nan ce b y October 1, 1970. Recommendation j5. All centers and institutes w ithin the U n i v e rsi ty that have academic responsibilities, or whose work concerns students, e i t h e r gr aduate or undergraduate, will develop methods o f involving students in the d e c i s i o n ­ making processes of the c en ter o r institute. Students associated with the center or institute must be i n v o l v e d in d e t e r mi ni ng the n a t u r 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 ec ted or not, will report their arrangements, if any, for b r i n g i n g stu dents into th e i r d e ­ cision-making p rocesses to the Fac ult y- Stu de nt C ommittee on A c a d e m i c G ov ernance by October 1, 19 70. - 6 - 335 Part II Student Participation in the Academic Council In considering student participation in the Academic Council, this Committee had the advantage o f the numerous suggestions for such p a r t i c i ­ pation made in the discussion of the Massey Report by the Council several meetings devoted to this topic during Fall 1969. in the After extended examination of all of the suggestions offered at that time or subsequently by members of the University community, commendations presented below. the Committee proposes the two r e ­ Before turning to those specific proposals, however, it seems advisable first to consider why we rejected the other major suggestions. 1. Completely parallel faculty and student governing b o d i e s . system at first seemed to us to have merit. This But let us consider what pletely parallel academic governing structure wo u l d mean. a com­ In such a system, there would be departmental student advisory committees separate from the faculty committees. There wou ld be college advisory committees separate from the faculty committees. a student academic senate. There would be a student academic council and In a completely parallel system, there wo u l d also be standing student committees similar in nature to the existing mittees. faculty com­ Such committees would initiate reports on the same subjects as the current faculty committees and would transmit those reports to the student academic council and the student senate and eventually to the President and the hoard of Trustees. reasons: O u r Committee rejects this model for the following (a) Many departments and colleges have already set up committees composed of faculty and students, and to adopt such a plan wou ld destroy such progress as has been made to integrate students and faculty into one academic - 7 - 334community. (b) This separate reports were sider the inevitable committee was conce rne d with what could happen i f two filed on the same topic b y the two governments. friction, chose to accept a student for example, the possibility o f separate In any event, the committee or a faculty felt that even decisions w o u l d further serve to divide the academic community rather than to unify it, decision-making process if the President and the Board report c onc erning tenure regulations, report on dormitory regulations. and f u r th er serve to h i n d e r the r a t h e r than to expedite it. For these central this committee rejects the idea o f comp le tel y par al lel structures. seen in Part I, however, dividually so choose, partments would be colleges and depar tme nt s w o u l d be to institute parallel free, structures at the college Con­ structures reasons, As was free, if the y in­ at the college and de ­ if they indi vid ua lly so choose, to institute parallel and d e p a r tm ent level. But we feel strongly that s t u ­ dents and faculty ought to come t o g e t h e r for decis io n m ak ing regarding mutual concerns at the level of the A c a d e m i c Counc il and thus be in a p o s i t i o n to present a single report on a given issue to the Pres ide nt and the Board. 2, Selection of u n d e r g r a d u a t e students student government o r g a n i z a t i o n s . the kinds of academi c quest ion s to consider. This p r o ced ur e w o u l d not b e consonant with that m e m b ers o f the A c a d e m i c Council Student go ve rnment does not grading, curriculum development, etc. are asked At present s tudent go v e r n m e n t at M i c h i g a n State Univ er sit y draws its members from the various g e og rap hic al on campus. at l a r g e , chosen from current and living or gan iz ati ons concern i t s e l f with such mat ter s chosen as e sta b l i s h m e n t o f new colleges and programs, These are app ro p r i a t e l y a ca dem ic concerns, faculty and students r epresented and s h oul d be dealt with by for t h e i r connection with academic affairs. A faculty organization o r g a n i z e d on the same p r inc ip le as A S M S U w o u l d hav e its members chosen by virtue o f t h e i r living in East Lansing, Okemos Surely no one could argue for such a faculty organization, and Haslett. and we w o u l d insist, - 8 - 535 similarly, that location of a b e d r o o m is not an appropriate basi s lishing eligibility 3. for e s t a b ­ for student m e m b e r s h i p on the A c a d e m i c Council, Selection from the various the Academic Counci 1 . colleges o f n o n - v o t i n g student m e m be rs of Such an arrangement w o u l d a n swe r those w h o h a v e con­ tended that giving the vote to students w o u l d d ras ti c a l l y change the n a t u r e of the Council, and make it less the voice o f the faculty. Council concerned i t s e l f on l y with matters advocating only If the A c a d e m i c affecting the faculty, faculty v oting me m b e r s h i p w o u l d be tenable. an argument But the A c a d e m i c Council has c oncerned i t s e l f in recent years with the m aj or gra din g report, living conditions of their causes, in the dor mi tories, develo pme nt the October 15 Moratorium. much as faculty, control o f disruptions, and change of the curricula, These are matters an ame li ora tio n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in clearly affect in g students as and to refuse students the o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e with their vote as well as t h e i r voice w o u l d lead to a lack of commitment on the part of students to any decisions m ad e b y the Council. 4. Formation o f ja stude nt advisor y committee to which the A c a d e m i c Council would be h e l d " a c c o u n t a b l e ." would make a recommendation, Presumably, if such a student committee the A c a d e m i c C o u nc il w o u l d be u n d e r the ob li gation to deal with that r e c o m m e n d a t i o n in some manner. finition of " a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . " The p r o b l e m here is the d e ­ Does e i t h e r a n e g a t i v e vote o r a p o s i t i v e vote on any given issue m e a n that the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l has " a c c o u n t e d " f o r a report? Are students from the advisory the Academic Council? situation? committee to be given the right to debate in If they are, what change do we have if they are not, from the present how will students be able fully to u n d e r s t a n d a negative vote, e f f e c t i v e l y to request a recon si der ati on , e f f e c t i v e l y to c o m ­ municate any feeling that t h e i r de fin it ion of acc o u n t a b i l i t y has not b e e n met? This Committee concludes that a cco un tab ili ty w o u l d not be met by the of a student advisory committee. formation - g - 336 For these various reasons, then, we have rejected the above suggestions in favor of the following recommendations: , Recommendation 4. There shall be one voting undergraduate student seated on the Academic~Counci 1 from each o f the thirteen colleges whose primary educational task is the education of the undergraduate. Recommendation 5. There shall be six voting graduate students seated on the Academic Council, s elected from among those colleges which have a graduate or professional training function. No college may be represented by more than one representative at any given time. Graduate students shall be selected by the Council of Graduate Students. It is appropriate now to turn to some specific justifications of these recommendations. The Committee chose the procedure of adding undergraduate students to the Academic Council b y virtue of their membership in an academic college. There seems no satisfactory basis on which to eliminate any p a r tic u­ lar college. We feel sure that the Academic Council w o u l d not vote to e l i m i ­ nate the sole faculty representative from a given college on the grounds that we were getting too many members in the council. could not agree to eliminate the student Accordingly, the committee from any given college in calling for undergraduate student representatives on the Aca demic Council. To those who assert that the addition of 19 or more students will make the Academic Council an unwieldy body, we w o u l d answer that there is no e v i ­ dence to suggest that the nature of an already large parliamentary b od y is changed only because the size of the b o d y is increased. To those w h o contend that the elected faculty can be out- vot ed by a coalition of all students, all deans, plus a strong minority of faculty members, we suggest that there is no evidence that faculty, deans or students have e v e r vo ted together as a group. We agree with those who argue that concerns p e c u l i a r to the faculty should be considered by the faculty alone. Part V of this document makes suggestions regarding changes in the ele cte d faculty council to provide a means o f dealing with these matters. We also agree with those w ho argue that concerns peculi ar to students should be considered by students alone. Part V of this document - 10 357 - includes proposals to this effect regarding the Student Affairs Committee. However, it seems to this Committee that most o f the actions taken hy the Academic Council in the past several years concerned students and faculty alike. Our recommendations regarding the addition of undergraduates to the Academic Council are obvious. We have the education of undergraduates. 13 colleges primarily concerned with We feel that each college should be re pr e­ sented by one undergraduate student, chosen from that college's majors or major preference students by any s ystem agreed upon by the students of that college. The Committee prefers having students elected by the ir peers, but we realize that elections may not always represent the best way for the s e l e c ­ tion of students. At the very least, any student selected to the Academic Council must be selected according to procedures agreed upon by a vote of the students within that college. The recommendation concerning graduate students needs special mention. Our recommendations are made following consultation with the Council of G r a ­ duate Students and with the approval of the graduate student representative on this Committee. We believe that the addition of six graduate students selected by the Council of Graduate Students will be a sufficient m i n i mu m to present a strong and varied graduate student voice in the Academic Council. Part III Student Participation on Standing Committees o f the Academic Council The present several faculty standing committees are a ma j o r component of university decision making; their recommendations and reports provide most of the agenda for the Academic Council, these committees that careful, and eventually the Senate. It is in detailed scrutiny is given to suggestions for changes in established programs and to efforts to innovate new programs. Manifestly, the academic decision-making process to which these committees are - n - 338 central is as significant for students to be involved in those decisions that as for faculty, and if students arc affect th e i r academic careers at MSU, they must have an opp or tun it y to share in the work o f these committees. bringing into committee deliberations spectives, students their own unique experiences By and p e r ­ can make a va luable contribution to the development of academic policy and legislation. Perhaps mor e than any other unit of the university, the committee proc ess constitutes the "channels" o f policy-making. Student access to as well as confidence in the integrity o f these channels is best ensured by student Since these committees rep re sentation on these committees. vary in size, and since students have a g r e a t e r interest in some committees than others there is n o pos sible rationale for having the same n u m b e r of students on all committees. Therefore, the follow­ ing recommendations p r o vid e for d ifferent numbers o f voting student members, with a br ief rationale p r o v i d e d for these differences. Recommendation 6. The appellation "faculty sta ndi ng co mmittee" shall be changed to "Council st and in g committee." Recommendation 7. The U n i v e rs ity Ed ucational Policies Commi tte e shall have six undergraduate students and three graduate students. Recommendation 8. graduate students The U n i ver si ty C u r r i c u l u m Co mm i t t e e shall have s ix u n d e r ­ and one graduate student. Of all the uni ver si ty s t a n d i n g committees, these t w o - - C u r r i c u l u m and E d ­ ucational Policies--are those most centrally c o n cer ned with the academic interests of all students. student voice and vote. Consequently, they s h oul d have on the greatest One graduate student m e m b e r for the University C u r r i c u ­ lum Committee is p r o p o s e d at the request o f COGS. Recommendation 9^. The Uni v e r s i t y C omm i t t e e on honors Programs shall have six undergraduates and one graduate student. Thre e of the un der graduates 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 w h o has completed a b a c c a l a u r e a t e degree in an honors program. - 12 -559 We propose three undergraduate student members who are not in Honors College in recognition of the fact that there are honors programs in many colleges and departments not directly tied to the Honors College, and there are honors sections not restricted to Honors College students. Recommendation 10. The University International Projects Committee and the Library Commit te d shall have three undergraduates and two graduate students. These undergraduate members are proposed in keeping with Recommendation 15. Two graduate members are proposed at the request of COGS. Recommendation 11. The University Faculty Tenure Committee shall have three undergraduate students and one graduate student. Students on the Faculty Tenure Committee have an appropriate place in that Committee's concern for the making o f general policy concerning tenure. Whether students should be involved in the judicial the Committee is less apparent. (case appeal) function of Accordingly, we make the following rec o m m e n ­ dations Recommendation 1 2 . The University Faculty Tenure Committee shall report to the Committee on Ac ad emi c Governance on their determination concerning the inclusion of students in the deliberations of the Committee. Recommendation 1 3 . The University business Affairs Committee shall have three undergraduate students and one graduate student. The recommendation regarding student membership on the Business Affairs Committee is made while a decision of the Board of Trustees sibilities of that Committee is pending. about the respon­ It is recognized that the Board's ultimate decision may suggest a different pattern of student representation. Re common dat ion 1 4 . student members. The University Faculty Affairs Committee shall have no This recommendation presumes the establishment of a Committee on Academic - 13 - 34-0 Governance (see Part V), which shall assume functions of legitimate concern to students now assigned to the F:aculty Affairs Committee. committee is established, If such a new the Faculty Affairs Committee would be responsible formatters of exclusive concern to the faculty: insurance, etc., as enu mer ate d in the Bylaws salary, fringe benefits, (5.4.3.3). Recommendation 1 5 . h ither three or six undergraduate students are to be appointed to the standing committees. The pattern of the University C u r r i ­ culum Committee of using basic subcommittees in social sciences, natural sciences and liberal arts to reach a decision in matters relating to those areas, is to be followed in the selection of undergraduates for all commit­ tees. Either one or two students shall be chosen from each of these areas, and all colleges of the University shall be allocated to an appropriate area for the purpose o f selecting students. Recommendation 16. Initially the thirteen undergraduate members of the Council representing the various colleges p r ima ril y concerned with unde r­ graduate education will determine which colleges will provide undergraduate student representation on the several University standing committees. Each college will then be responsible for selecting the student representative(s) to the separate standing committees. Student constituents of a college must be involved in determining the selection procedures. For purposes of clarification, the colleges as they are assigned in the pattern followed by the Cur riculum Committee in setting up basic subcommittees are as follows: LIBERAL ARTS: College; SOCIAL SCIENCE: Arts and Letters, Justin Morrill, University Business, Communication Arts, Education, Home E con­ omics, James Madison, Social Science; NAT URA L SCIENCE: Resources, Engineering, Human Medicine, Agriculture and Natural Lyman Briggs, Natural Science, V e t e r ­ inary Medicine. It should be n o t e d that although the n u m b e r of colleges in the respective areas is 3-6-6, the n u m b e r of students is approximately the same in each of the three areas. Recommendation 1 7 . The Council of Graduate Students will be responsible for selecting graduate student members of the separate University standing committees. - 14 -54/L Part IV Specific Minority Representation in Academic Government. (Blacks, Latin Americans, and Native Americans) Recommendation 18. There shall be additional seats for minority student representation on- the Aca dem ic Council, and all standing committees o f the Council. The means of selecting these students will be developed b y the a p ­ propriate minority groups and reported to the Committee on Academic Go ve r­ nance by October 1, 19 70. Recommendation 19. There shall be 10 seats on the Academ ic Council in order to provide for specific minority representation. Recommendation 20. There shall be 3 minority seats on the University Educational Policies- C o m m i t t e e , The University Cur ric ulu m Committee, the University Committee on Honors Programs, the University International Projects Committee, the University Library Committee, and there shall be 2 minority seats on The University Faculty Tenure Committee and the University Committee on Business Affairs, in order to provide for specific minority representation on these committees. Recommendation 2 1 . There shall be 7 minority seats on the University Student Affairs Committee in order to provide for specific minority representation. Recommendation 2 2 . There shall be 5 minority seats on the University Committee on Academic Governance in order to provide for specific minority representation. Recommendation 23. While there m ay be n o universal model for inclusion o f students into tHe" academic departments and colleges of the University, every department and college will develop the nece ssa ry methods to insure minority representation w her e v e r possible. In light of today's realities, our representative structures by their very nature fail to air certain points of view. minority groups defined as Blacks, It is our contention that Latin Americans, and Native Americans have suffered most under these kinds of representative structures wi thin our society. The recommendations set forth are not attempts to negate the predominant white viewpoint, nor for that matter to stalemate a p a r t ic ula r vote. It is rather an attempt to negate the inequities and deficiencies so apparent in the repre­ sentative structure at least until that time w hen such provisions are no longer necessary. - 15 Our recommendations - 34-2 con cer nin g mi nor ity Council, the st anding committees repres ent at ion on the A ca demic of the Council, the colleges and departments are the result of e x t e n s i v e c on sultation w i t h the o rga n i z a t i o n s re pr esentative of the minority groups as defi ned above. We b e l iev e our recommendations re­ flect the m i n i m u m n u m b e r o f m i n o r i t y stude nt involvement w h i c h wil l insure just representation. Part V Additional R eco mmendations One of the pro bl ems b e f o r e the New C o m m i t t e e on Stu den t Pa rticipation in Academic Government c o nc er ned the q u e s t i o n of students the Faculty Affairs C omm i t t e e of the A c a d e m i c Council. one hand that inasmuch as that committee h a d in the past r e pr es ent at ion on It was argued on the c on cer ne d i t s e l f withbylaw changes and ot h e r reforms in a c a d e m i c governance, be represented if t h e i r ideas students should and aspirations were to be t r e at ed w ith the seriousness they deserved. On the other hand, p e r s u a s i v e arguments were o f f e red that the faculty should have a clear and unique voice for the e x p r e s s i o n o f those matters that were of prim ary concern to faculty q u a faculty. To resolve this dilemma, namely, to create a stru ctu re that w o u l d enable students to p a rti cip at e in de lib er ati on s o ve r future changes in the form of academic governance and to s a f e g u a r d the faculty voice in matters primary concern to t h e m as faculty, we p r o p o s e the that are o f following: Faculty Affa ir s C o m m i t t e e . Recommendation 2 4 . The F a c u l t y Aff ai rs C o m m i t t e e (See p age 13) shall report to the Elected Faculty Co unc il, r a t h e r than to the A c a d e m i c Council, on matters of exclusive concern to the faculty: salary, fringe benef its , insurance, etc. as e numberated in the Bylaws (5.4.3.3). The Bylaws o f the U n i v e rsi ty shall be changed to provide that the E l e c t e d Faculty C o u nc il may vote of those present and voting - m m y refer matte rs o f e x clu si ve concern to the faculty directly to the A c a d e m i c Senate. - 16 - 3^3 Recommendation 25. The Faculty Affairs Committee shall be relieved of its direct responsibility concerning the Bylaws. As stated on Page 9, we believe that "concerns p ecu lia r to the faculty should be considered by the faculty alone...." that the Faculty Affairs Committee, Accordingly, we here propose composed solely o f members of the faculty, deal with faculty problems and report to the Elected Faculty Council. B. The Faculty-Student Committee on Academic Gove m a n c e . Recommendation 2 6 . The Academic Council shall create a University Committee on Academic Governance composed of one faculty member and one student to re­ present each of the colleges of the University. The mechanism for student inclusion on the Committee shall originate withi n the colleges. In addition, five faculty members shall be selected by the Committee on Committees to in­ clude all three faculty ranks. Recommendation 27. The University Committee on Academic Governance shall be charged with the responsibility for continuing review of the Bylaws of the University to assure that they are b e i n g observed and with the responsibility for making recommendations to the Council for whatever changes in the Bylaws the Committee’s investigations indicate. Specifically, this Committee is also charged with the responsibility for continuing study of the steps being taken throughout the University to involve students in academic government in accord with the action taken by the Academic Council on this present report and with the responsibility for making recommendations to the Council as the Committee’s investigations indicate. One would have to be extremely insensitive to the current ethos not to recognize the wide-spr ead concern over the governance of institutions of higher learning. Regardless of one's philo so phi c approach, vested interest, or aspiration 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 universities. Institutions that have been lethargic or complacent or have relied upon unexamined out-moded forms of organization or false assumptions have done so to their sorrow. It may have been sufficient in the past to resolve the p r o ­ blems created by new social pressures in ad hoc fashion. It seems likely that - 17 - J4-4in the future such a policy w o u l d result in at least governance by "crisis resolution" and at worst chaos and anarchy. No committee is likely to of f e r a p a n a c e a for the complex probl ems of the rapidly changing social s y ste m and certainly n o such claim is made for the Committee on A c a d e m i c Governance. It would, ho wever, a p p e a r pru de nt to establish some agency that w o u l d be s p e c i f i c a l l y c harged wit h the difficult, perhaps impossible, ernance that might be admittedly task of an tic ipating changes in ac ade mic g o v ­ a c c o m p l i s h e d in rational fashion. the likelihood o f avoiding p r e c i p i t a t e It w o u l d seem that actions under conditions of high t e n ­ sion would be improved. C. Student Affairs C ommittee On Page 9 of this report, we s t a t e d o u r conviction that as faculty con­ cerns should be h a n d l e d by faculty alone, so "concerns p e c u l i a r to the s t u ­ dents should be c o n s i d e r e d b y the students alone." At present, the S t u de nt Aff air s C o mmi tte e has two m a j o r charges und er the Bylaws. (1) "to examine, study a nd evaluate all policies o f the Vice President for Student Affairs as they affect a cad em ic ac hievement in the University and advise the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Associate Dean of Students, and the A c a d e m i c C o u n cil t he re upo n (5.4.8.2) "review and reco mm end changes in regulations g o v er nin g student developed and p r o p o s e d b y living units and (2) to conduct as and gover nin g groups" and to "initiate, review and recommend p r o p o s e d changes in the proce du res thr oug h wh i c h such regulations are p r o m u l g a t e d and . . .make appropriate rec ommendations to the Academic Council" (5.4.8.3). The second charge, d e t a i l e d in 5.4.8.3, thus deals wit h licies. living unit p o ­ We believe such pol ic ies w o u l d be more e f f e c t i v e l y and a p p r op ria te ly handled by a group o rg a n i z e d in terms o f living units. Acco rdi ngl y, we propose - 1 8 -345 the following: Recommendation 28. Section 5.4.8.3. the Student Affairs Committee. shall be eliminated from the charge o f If this recommendation is approved b y the Council, we furth er propose that, in keeping with this action, AS M S U and/or the Student Affairs Committee initiate amendment of the Academic Freedom Report, sections 5.2 and 5.3 to read as follows: 5.2 It is recommended, however, that regulations developed by living units be reviewed by the appropriate governing group. The governing group, after reviewing the regulations, shall refer the matte r back to the living unit, together with any suggestions for change. A f t e r review by the living unit, the m a t t e r shall be returned to the m a j o r g o ve rn­ ing group which shall forward the regulation, to ge the r with any r eco m­ mendations it cares to make, to the Student Board o f ASMSU. The Student Board of ASMSU shall review the regulations and forward them, to gether with any recommendations they care to make, to the Vice President for Student Affairs. The Vice President for Student Affairs shall make public his decision regarding the regulations, 5.5 A major governing group or the Student Board of A S M S U may originate regulations, but such regulations must be referred directly to the ap­ propriate living units, w hereupon the procedure described in the p r e ­ ceding paragraph shall be followed. Recommendation 2 9 . The Student Affairs Committee shall be composed of one undergraduate student from each college. The Vice President for Student Affairs and the Associate Dean of Students shall serve ex officio without vote, - 19 3 ^ 6 - Recommendation 30. The ne wly c on sti tu ted Student Affai rs Comm itt ee shall be charged to examine, study and evaluate all pol ic ies of the Vice President for Student Affairs and advise the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Associate Dean of Students, and the A c a d e m i c Council thereupon. Recommendation 31. The ne w l y c o n s t i tu ted Student A f f ai rs Co m m i t t e e shall also be charged with the present duties o f the C o mm itt ee on A c a d e m i c Right and Responsibilities as de sc r i b e d in Section 2.3 of the A c a d e m i c F r e e d o m Report. 3t If Recommendation,*! is a pp rov ed b y the Council, we further p r o p ose that A in keeping with this action, AS M S U a nd /or the Student Aff ai rs Committee i ni ­ tiate amendment of the Ac ad e m i c F r e edo m R e p ort to e l imi na te section 2.3. Recommendation 32. One student, e i t h e r g ra dua te or under gra dua te , to be selected from the student memb er s o f the A c a d e m i c Counc il b y those members, will serve on the S te eri ng C o m mi tte e o f the University. This Committee bel i e v e s this r ep res ent at ion is n e c e s s a r y to insure student voice in d et erm ini ng what matters will be b r o u g h t befo re the Academi Counci 1. Respectfully submitted, James B. McKee, Ch air m a n Sam Baskett F.Twin Betti nph aus Edward Carlin Michael Harrison John Masterson Gina Schaack Harry Chancey Michael Freed Charles McMillan February 17, 1970 APPENDIX F 347 APPENDIX F 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 5* 1970 - 2 - 3^8 C O M P O S I T I O N OF T H E A C A D E M I C C O U N C I L Present \ Proposed presiding O f f i c e r s : president 1* * 1* Provost 1 1 Elected F a c u l t y Council; Elected F a c u l t y Stee r i n g Representatives committee; F a c u l t y M e m b e r s 56 56 5 5 Subtotal 61 61 20 20 Appointed C o u n c i l : Deans (of c o l l e g e s ; Graduate School; Programs) of of Students; of International Ex O f f i c i o M e m b e r s : Offi c e r s and Chairmen o f Directors Standing Committees 6* 6 9* 12 1* 1* Ombudsman Subtotal 19 16* Student R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s : Undergraduates 2* Graduates 1* 15 6 Representatives-at-large 10 Subtotal TOTAL * Non-voting members ** May vote to break ties 3* 102 31 133 PROPOSED membership of the standing Faculty Total committee (Total) Curriculum (27) ♦Faculty A f f a i r s , F a c u l t y Compensation, a n d A c a d e m i c Budget (1 4 ) Faculty T e n u r e (2 0 ) Honors P r o g r a m s (2 3 ) International Projects Library (21) (2 1 ) ♦Student Affairs Business Affairs (17) (21) ♦Academic Governance (36) Lands the academic council Student UnderMembersq r a d u a t e G r a d u a t e a t - l a r g e Total £■ pl an n i n c r * New Committee 16 6 3 2 11 14 0 0 0 0 14 3 1 2 6 14 6 1 2 9 14 3 2 2 2 14 3 2 2 1 6 5 4 2 11 14 3 2 2 2 2 18 - 16 - 18 ♦Public Safety (14) ♦Building. of 16 (25 m e m b e r s ) Educational P o l i c i e s committees (20) 7 4 1 2 2 14 3 1 2 6 - 4 - 350 1 .2 .(y. R e n u m b e r as " 1 . 2 . 7 . " For "voting faculty" read "qualified voting members": Introduce (preceding the section just treated) a new s e c t i o n as f o l l o w s : "1.2.6. The qualified academic besides unit voting members of shall be und e r s t o o d to comprise# the v o t i n g sentatives a particular faculty, selected the student repre­ for that u n i t under these r u l e s ." 2. 3 . Delete "Department "O r g a n i z a t i o n ." 2 . 3.1 . For "voting faculty" read "qualified voting members." 2.3.2. For "voting read "qualified voting members." 2.3.3. New version: "2.3.3. and School faculty" Department thereto, or school bylaws, Student " 2 . 5.1. amendments or school intervals shall not to five years." a new section to be substituted 2.3.4. a n d 2 . 3 . 4 . 1 . : * "2.5. for Council Revisions Representation Each department and school or institute bilities, * at r e g u l a r simply The qualified of a department review its b y laws 2-5. and shall be published. voting members exceed Faculty," reading that has and each center academic responsi­ or whose work concerns students, The term " C o u n c i l R e v i s i o n s , " w h i c h r e c u r s t h r o u g h o u t t h i s R e p o r t refers to t h e R e p o r t o f P r o f e s s o r M c K e e ' s c o m m i t t e e i n t h e a m e n d e d version w h i c h w a s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e A c a d e m i c S e n a t e . 351 either graduate or undergraduate, develop patterns involvement of for the its significant students sion-making processes shall in the by which deci­ policy is formed. Each department, is c h a r g e d w i t h school, center or defining the extent student constituency, namely, the in a d d i t i o n question whether, majors, its constituency m a j o r —p r e f e r e n c e interested However, student in the affairs be is of to whi c h The of responsible sentatives tives office. to to its sophomores, etc. full-time to participation unit in the college for a constituency selecting, own choice, in the c o u n c i l s of shall elected such their they terms of one deciding students, entitled i ts in enrolled. students patterns and of include regularly enrolled shall be which he The n o —p r e f e r e n c e every with shall freshmen institute are for one year. serve according their to repre­ and committees party. office be shall student A representa­ s t u d e n t m a y be an a d d i t i o n a l term of - 6 352 "2.5.5. Membership shall in in all a council cases or committee carry with student representatives, "2.5.6. Membership carries vote on all matters, internal within view, "2.5.7. The (1.2.1. the and reserved right it the to vote. right to as w e l l 1.2.3.), that that these exceptions are as fall or council's for mat t er s reserved by for external committee's except fically with the it, pur­ speci­ rules. are o f three sorts, namely, "2.5.7.1. Matters the of e x c l u s i v e f a c u l t y , such leaves, housing, "2.5.7.2. Matters health the the the duties duties pursuit of and the that obligation intellectual University detached fringe a f f e c t i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i v e ly faculty's tain the salary, and other service to retirement; professional namely, as t h e i r insurance benefits, concern as inquiry of truth; faculty, flow from to m a i n ­ authority of a c e n t e r of and disinterested " 2 . 5 .7 . 3 . Matters in w h i c h the d i s t i n c ­ tively professional the r i g h t s of f a c u l t y a re at i s s u e , as in decisions concerning stantive is, th e s u b ­ i s s u e s o f tenure, the re-appointment, or dismissal of the that promotion, of individual members faculty whose appointment p l a c e s t h e m u n d e r the r u l e s of tenure. Any act w h i c h d i m i n i s h e s , promises or duties suspends or c o m ­ t he d i s t i n c t i v e l y p r o f e s s i o n a l of t h e faculty is d e s t r u c t i v e of th e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y a n d bidden by these right is f o r ­ rules. P r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c y is a n e c e s s a r y c o n ­ dition for t e a c h i n g not, h o w e v e r , teaching in t h e U n i v e r s i t y : a sufficient condition an d the t e a c h i n g it is for function remains a just m a t t e r o f s tudent concern. "2 . 5 . 9 .1. Nothing in these rules s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d as g r a n t i n g an i m m u n i t y t o th e demands faculty from the legitimate f o r an a s s i d u o u s , and considerate informed attention to the duties of teaching. 354 - "2.5.9.2. Student representatives may with perfect propriety raise questions of g e n e r a l p o licy d e signed the "Code ity") to provide teaching where of T e a c h i n g or are "2.5.9.3. remedies for poo r are needed but or though not available in practice disallowed. Student inputs evidence — especially regarding the performances which directly in the — must faculty's the teaching students figure observe significantly judgment whenever decisions concerning substantive issues tenure in process of of being "2.5.9.4. Responsibil­ negligent performance, remedies available, (as i n All are formed. agencies at t h e level of department, school, institute residential college (the b a s i c units in w h i c h substantive originate) are expressly to provide formal students considered decisions instructed opportunities to represent in order that or their their views along with fo r views, m a y be other evidence. "2.5.9.5. 555 If, h o w e v e r , for e x a m p l e decision in a c a s e chance, requiring a f o r r e - a p p o i n t m e n t or dismissal te n u r e , it s h o u l d u n d e r th e r u l e s o f that the students favored the r e-appointment of a person whose p e r f o r m a n c e the faculty regarded level of the as b e l o w t h e University, the faculty's judgment w o u l d carr y . 3.5.6. T h e C o u n c i l ’s r e v i s i o n : "3.5.6. The College Advisory Council shall publish its minutes." 3.6. A new section to be substituted 3.6., 3 . 6 . 1 . , a n d 3.6.2.: "3.6. student Representation "3.6.1. Each college fo r C o u n c i l shall d e v elop patterns fo r t h e s i g n i f i c a n t its students Revisions i n v o l v e m e n t of i n the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s e s b y w h i c h p o l i c y is formed. "3.6.2. Each college th e e x t e n t o f is c h a r g e d w i t h d e f i n i n g its s t u d e n t constituency. Every regularly enrolled student shall be entitled full-time to p a r t i c i p a t e in the a f f a i r s o f one c o l l e g e University. in the - 10 356 "3.6.3. The rules 2.5.9.5. l a i d d o w n in S e c t i o n s 2.5.3. - shall be un d e r s t o o d to g o vern student r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e c o l l e g e as w e l l as at the d e p a r t m e n t a l 4.3.3.3.1. "4.3.3.3.1. an d s c h o o l l evel." - 4. 3 . 3 . 3 . 2 . The Council's Business revision: requiring consideration o f th e A c a d e m i c Senate shall o r d i n a r i l y b e b r o u g h t b e f o r e it in the form o f a report or r e c o m ­ m e n d a t i o n f r o m the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i - W h e n a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n is i n i t i a l l y presented, it to amendment. back shall not be It m a y be subject referred to t h e o r i g i n a t i n g C o u n c i l for f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o r i t m a y be a d o p t e d as p r e s e n t e d . Matters referred to a Council by the Senate shall in all cases be reported b a c k t o it. "4.3.3.3.2. When a matter has been resubmitted b y the C o u ncil to m a y again be th e S e n a t e , it returned to the council as o f t e n as t h e S e n a t e d e e m s n e c e s ­ sary. U p o n r e s u b m i s s i o n b y the C o u n c i l to t h e S e n a t e , a report or r e c o m m e n d a t i o n shall be subject - 11 557 to amendment amendments in the shall majority vote and voting. question at the require vote on the main adoption of the time of the initial sequent presentation a majority a of those present The of Senate; report or shall sub­ be b y of those present and v o t i n g ." 4.4.1.1. "4.4.1.1. The council's revision ("representatives" has b e e n s u b s t i t u t e d for "members" i n the phra s e "the student members"): The Academic President, Council the provost, representatives, the deans, "4.4.1.1.1. the members and designated shall the consist of elected faculty student of the the representatives, Steering Committee, ex o f f i c i o members. The sub-group consisting President, the Provost, representatives, the of the of on Faculty Faculty Compensation, and A c a d e m i c Budget, faculty members Committee faculty chairman the U n i v e r s i t y c o m m i t t e e Affairs, the of and the the Steering shall constitute Elected Faculty Council." the 358 T h e o r d e r of R e v i s i o n s 4.4. 1 . 1 . 3 . a nd 4.4.].. 1.4. is t o be reve r s e d : th e t e x t s are r e n u m b e r e d accordingly. E d i t o r i a l c h a n g e in 4 . 4 . 1 . 1 . 4 . : f o r “f a c u l t y s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e " r e a d " s t a n d ­ i n g c o m m i t t e e of th e C o u n c i l . " "4.4.1.1.3. T h e t h i r d s u b - g r o u p s h all c o n s i s t of th e S t u d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . (This t e r m s h a l l be u n d e r s t o o d to s i g n i f y b o t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s - a t - l a r g e .) " 4.4.1 . 1.4. T h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l s h a l l h a v e the following ex officio members: Vice the P r e s i d e n t for S t u d e n t A f f a i r s ; t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r in c h a r g e o f adm i s s i o n s , s c h o l a r s h i p s and registration; th e D i r e c t o r of Undergraduate Educ a t i o n ; the D i r e c t o r o f th e H o n o r s C o l l e g e ; the D i r e c t o r of C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n t h e D i r e c t o r of Libraries; the chairman of each standing committee of th e Council; th e O m b u d s m a n . " T h e C o u n c i l revision: “4 . 4 . 1 . 2 . 1 . A l l m e m b e r s of the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f t he p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r a n d t he O m b u d s m a n , b e v o t i n g m e m b e r s ." shall - 13 - 359 4.4.2. D e l e t e "N u m b e r a n d E l e c t i o n o f C o l l e g e R e p r e s e n t a ­ t i v e s 11 and r e a d "F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . " N o t e t h a t t h e r e n u m b e r i n g in t h e C o u n c i l r e v i s i o n s for t h e w h o l e s e q u e n c e 4 . 4 . 2 . 1 . - 4 . 4 . 2 . 1 . 9 . is rescinded. For II II II II II II II 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 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 r e v i s i o n w i t h an editorial rephrasing: "standing committees of the C o u n c i l " for " c o u n c i l s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e s . " "4.4.2.04. T h e e l e c t i o n of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o t h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l a n d to standing Council committees of the shall be deemed external matter voting 4.4.2.6. faculty an for a college ( 1 . 2 . 3 . — 1.2.4.). F o r " c o l l e g e " r e a d " f a c u l t y " i n th e t w o i n s t a n c e s of t h e p h r a s e " e l e c t e d c o l l e g e representative." "4.4.2.06. T h e t e r m of o f f i c e of an e l e c t e d faculty representative two years. s h a l l be No individual may serve more than two consecutive terms as an e l e c t e d representative. faculty (When a college - 14 360 is first established, representatives first term election of those 4.4.3. only half elected shall in the serve one year, receiving the a namely, fewer votes.) D e l e t e "4.4.3. N u m b e r and E l e c t i o n o f N o n —C o l lege F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , " a n d r e n u m b e r 4 . 4 . 3 . 1 . as “4 . 4 . 2 . 1 0 . " 4.4.3. Introduce Revisions "4.4.3. Student a n ew section (corresponding to Council 4.4.2.2. - 4.4.5.4.), as follows: Representatives "4.4.3.01. Undergraduate Each of Student the colleges whose educational task undergraduates uate "4.4.3.02. The student College College one of Hum a n Medicine, toward one undergrad­ the and representative, or a student a professional representatives shall be to p rocedures a vote the of of of Veterinary Medicine according the education representative. an undergraduate working These the shall have shall each have "4.4.3.03. is primary of Osteopathic Medicine, the College either Representatives: degree. chosen established student constituency several colleges. by of "4.4.3.04. The 361 term of office representative A of shall representative a student be may one year. serve tional term of office. office shall coincide with an addi­ Terms of the aca­ demic year. "4.4.3.05. Graduate Student graduate students University from those among function. represented by more The graduate at a student selected by Graduate Students with Terms the Student ensure the shall cil a graduate be of student one year. serve an additional shall coincide Representatives—a t — l a rge: be of representation n o n —w h i t e s , reserved student A year. a systematic for one the C o uncil office academic views shall of than representatives of representative may term. No college ( COGS). term of office representative a time. shall be The selected colleges which have training representative "4.4.3.08. the six representatives m ay be "4.4.3.07. of shall have graduate "4.4.3.06. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s : The on ten To of seats the A c a d e m i c Coun­ representatives—at— l a rge. - 16 562 ”4 . 4 . 3 . 0 8 . 1 . Of six "4.4.3.08.2. these shall These ten be positions, reserved positions shall elections-at-large, at for be least non-whites. filled by t h a t is, b y elections that involve the total s t u d e n t community. ”4 . 4 . 3 . 0 8 . 3 . The slate of candidates-at-large shall b e p r e p a r e d b y a S t u d e n t C o m m i t t e e on N o m i n a t i o n s c o n s i s t i n g o f the f o l l o w i n g five p e r s o n s : t h e s t u d e n t m e m b e r o f the Steering Committee (4.5.1.1.2.), three undergraduates — at least t w o of w h o m s h a l l b e n o n - w h i t e — a p p o i n t e d b y the c h a i r m a n of the A s s o c i a t e d S t u d e n t s of Michigan state university ( A S M S U ) , and three graduate students — at l e a s t t w o o f w h o m s h a l l be non-white — appointed b y the president of the council of Graduate Students (COGS). Th e s t u d e n t m e m b e r o f the steering Committee shall be responsible for a s s e m b l i n g t h e c o m m i t t e e and s h a l l p r e s i d e as c h a i r m a n at its m e e t i n g s . T h e C o m m i t t e e s h a l l r e p o r t to t h e s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the Council. - 17 - 363 "4.4.3.08-4. The s l a t e p r e p a r e d by the C o m m i t t e e on Nominations shall two candidates for e a c h p o s i t i o n to be The Committee filled. name at f r e e t o se t i ts o w n rule s . is, h o w e v e r , expressly least is It instructed to consult with the established non-white organizations, tain nominating petitions student groups, the b a llot to e n t e r ­ from and to p r o v i d e in for t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of write-ins. "4.4.3.08.5. It s h a l l b e u n d e r s t o o d positions that these fo r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s - a t - large d o not include the seats in the C o u n c i l alluded to in Sections 4.4.3.01., "4.4.3.08.6. 4.4.3.02., a nd 4 . 4 . 3 . 0 5 . A s t u d e n t m e m b e r of a n o n —w h i t e minority may according processes be elected a college, o ut r e f e r e n c e The students, with­ to his m i n o r i t y student then not by virtue of h i s status to represent or d e s i gnated to r e p r e ­ s e n t th e g r a d u a t e status. to ordinary serves special as t he m e m b e r of a m i n o r i t y - 18 - 564 but by virtue status of his ordinary as t h e m e m b e r o r as a g r a d u a t e a student of a c o l l e g e student. Such shall not be counted in determining the number of non-white at-large student that representatives- remain on any given o c c asio n to be chosen. ”4 . 4 . 3 . 0 8 . 7 . The purpose of these is not to d i g n i f y provisions our separations or to make p e r m a n e n t our divisions but to affirm the p l u r alism is indispensable community. to our form of Our purpose institute a guarantee, is namely, that the voice college 'Not m o r e tion of is, in this of the occasions, results and graduate elections, of the shall on all irrespective the of election, non-white minorities University to to ensure a result not certified by ordinary processes that of student be p o sitively heard. than six' a quota; is t h e 'at l e a s t o n the c o n t r a r y , ledgement of a right. the imposi­ six' acknow­ - 19 - 365 "4.4.3.08.8. I' T h e t e r m of o f f i c e of a s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e —a t — large one year. shall be A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e — at- large m a y serve an additional term. Terms of office shall coincide with the academic year." 4.4.4. - 4 . 4 . 5 . 4 . * T h e r e n u m b e r i n g o f S e c t i o n s 4.4.4. — 4 . 4 . 5 . 4 . (=4.4.6. - 4 . 4 . 7 . 4 . i n the C o u n c i l r e v i s i o n s ) is r e s c i n d e d . T h e n u m b e r s n o w a p p e a r i n g in t h e p r i n t e d B y l a w s ar e t o b e r e t a i n e d . 4.4.4.1. "4.4.4.1. The Council's revision 1970, p a g e 3): " 4.4.5.3. 10, The Academic C o u ncil acts the Academic subject to the provisions S enate, o f S e c t i o n s 4.3. 2 . 4.4.5.3. (Minutes o f N o v e m b e r for a n d o n b e h a l f of and 4.3.3.3." T h e C o u n c i l ' s r e v i s i o n (it is a s s u m e d t h a t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a s t u d e n t i n t o the S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e , as p r o v i d e d in t h e C o u n c i l r e v i s i o n o f S e c t i o n 4 . 5 . 1 . 1 . 2 . , is a p p r o v e d ) : The Elected Faculty Council regular intervals. absence the s h a l l m e e t at The President, Provost, tary of the F a c u l t i e s o r in h i s shall preside. shall The Secre­ s e r v e as s e c r e t a r y . T h e v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p o f the E l e c t e d F a c u l t y Council s h a l l c o n s i s t of t h e e l e c t e d representatives; the chairman of the University Committee on Faculty Affairs, tion, faculty and Academic Faculty Compensa­ Budget,* a n d t h e m e m b e r s of the S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e . o f f i c e r m a y v o t e t o b r e a k ties. faculty The p r e s i d i n g Minutes of a l l - 20 - $66 meetings of the Elected Faculty Council shall he circulated to all members of the A c u i t y . The r e n u m b e r i n g in the Council r e v i s i o n rescinded. T h e text r emains the same. - 4.5.1.7. "4.5.1.1. T h e C o u ncil revision, (=4.4.7.4.) ls e d i t o r i a l l y modified: The S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e shall be compo s e d of six members, as follows: "4.5.1.1.1. Five m e m b e r s shall b e el e c t e d b y the v oti n g f a c u l t y of the U n i v e r s i t y for t w o - y e a r terms. No more t h a n one m e m b e r m a y come from any one college. "4.5.1.1.2. O ne student, e i t h e r a g r a d u a t e or an u n dergraduate, shall b e selected b y t h e s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the A c a d e m i c C ouncil f r o m among their n u m b e r for a o n e - y e a r term. "4.5.1.1.3. N o m e m b e r is e l i g i b l e to serve m o r e than two terms consecutively. steering Committee members shall serve as m e m ­ bers of the Academic Council in addition to their college's other representatives. The steering Commit­ tee shall elect its own chairman and secretary. -21"4.5.1.2. 367 Faculty members of the Steering Committ e e m a y n o t serve c o n c u r r e n t l y as c o l l e g e r e p r e ­ s e n t a t i v e s o n the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l "4.5.1.3. E i t h e r two or t h r e e f a c u l t y m e m b e r s of the S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e s h all c o m p l e t e e a c h y e a r an d b e u p ment. (4.4.2.5.). t h e i r terms for r e - e l e c t i o n or r e p l a c e ­ Th e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l and the C o m m i t t e e on Committees shall e a c h n o m i n a t e t w o c a n d i d a t e s for e a c h p o s i t i o n to be filled. Thus, voting four n o m i n e e s faculty will choose among the for e a c h p o s i t i o n open. "4.5.1.4. T h e e l e c t i o n of f a c u l t y m e m b e r s ing C o m m i t t e e matter to t he S t e e r ­ shall be d e e m e d an e x t e r n a l for c o l l e g e v o t i n g f a c u l t i e s (1.2.3. - 1.2.4.). "4.5.1.5. T h e e l e c t i o n o f f a c u l t y m e m b e r s t o th e S t e e r ­ i n g C o m m i t t e e s h all be c o n d u c t e d b y the S e c r e ­ t a r y o f th e F a c u l t i e s a n n u a l l y i n th e s e c o n d week in May. E l e c t i o n s hall b e d e c i d e d b y a p l u r a l i t y of votes. office July 1. Elected members take The student representative s e l e c t e d t o s erve o n th e S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e (4.5.1.1.2.) s hall b e n a m e d to the S e c r e t a r y o f t h e F a c ulties. "4.5.1.6. F a c u l t y p o s i t i o n s o n the S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e vacated during a term of office shall be filled by appointment of the Elected Faculty C o u n c i l . ~ 22 5GB The student- position, term of office, if vacated during a shall be filled by a student chosen by the student representatives of the Academic Council from among their n u m b e r . " The Council revisions: The Steering Committee shall act as an agency t hrough which individual faculty members or students, or faculty or student groups and organizations, m a y initiate action. The Steering Committee, in consultatio n with the President or the Provost, shall prepare the agenda for meet i n g s of the Acade m i c Council and the A c a d e m i c Senate. Before each regularly scheduled m e e t i n g of the Acad e m i c Senate or the Academic Council, the Steering Committee shall h o l d a duly announced meeting open to any m e m b e r of the Academic Senate or of the University's student body at which suggestions for agenda items w i l l be h e a r d and any proposals, complaints, inquiries, etc., will be duly processed." The Council revision: The Committee on Committees shall consist of one faculty m e m b e r from each departmen t a l l y organized college, one faculty member from the g r o u p of residential colleges, and one faculty - 23 - 369 m e m b e r f r o m the n o n - c o l l e g e f a c u l t y group. T h e c o m m i t t e e s h a l l e l e c t its c h a i r m a n . Only n e w l y - e l e c t e d c o l l e g e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l are e l i g i b l e for e l e c t i o n to the C o m m i t t e e o n C o m m i t t e e s . E l e c t i o n to the C o m m i t t e e o n C o m m i t t e e s s hall be b y v o t e of the e l e c t e d c o l l e g e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l fa c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the r e s p e c t i v e colle g e s . T h e t e r m o f o f f i c e is t w o y e a r s . Provisions s h all b e m a d e t o s t a g g e r e l e c t i o n s t o a s s u r e continuity." 5. - 5.2.3. "5• The C o u n c i l r e v i s i o n (the C o u n c i l ' s a m e n d e d n u m b e r sequence h a s be en a l t e r e d ) : The Standing C o m m i t t e e s o f t h e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l "5.1. Na t u r e a n d E s t a b l i s h m e n t of the S t a n d i n g C o m m i t t e e s of the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l "5.1.1. A Council standing committee whose is an y c o m m i t t e e f u n c t i o n is d e e m e d so important, p e r m a n e n t c o n t i n u i t y of w h o s e a c t i v i t y and the is so e s s e n t i a l to e f f e c t i v e a c a d e m i c g o v e r n m e n t , the C o u n c i l e s t a b l i s h e s "5.1.2. T h e r e shall be the that it u n d e r t h a t title. following Council standing committees: University C u r r i c u l u m Committee University Educational Policies Committee University Committee on Faculty Affairs, Compensation, and Academic Budget Faculty - 24 - 370 University Faculty Tenure committee University committee on Honors University international Programs 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 Planning "5.2. on Building, Lands General Rules Governing Standing Committees and of the Academic Council "5.2.1. Subcommittees or ad h o c comm i t t e e s standing committees shall ex i s t at the d i s c r e ­ tion of the parent committees. of the continuance committees snail be of Council of The subcommittees raised annually advisability o r ad h o c in the parent committees." 5.2.2. " 5 . 2.2. T he C o u n c i l R e v i s i o n s 5.2.2. — 5.2.2.1.2. h a v e been renumbered. T h e h e a d i n g "5. 2 . 2 . C o u n c i l Committee Membership" has been expunged. intro­ duce the new h e a d i n g : Faculty Membership "5.2.2.1. The term of office of elected members of all C ouncil mittees shall visions shall be made be faculty standing c o m ­ three years. Pro­ to stagger elections to assure continuity. Terms - 25 - 371 o f o f f i c e shall b e g i n on J a n u a r y 1, a nd t e r m i n a t e o n D e c e m b e r 31. "5.2.2.2. N o m e m b e r o f t h e f a c u l t y m a y s e r v e as a v o t i n g m e m b e r o f m o r e t h a n on e C o u n c i l s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e at a t i m e (6.1.3.). N o e l e c t e d f a c u l t y m e m b e r of a C o u n c i l s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e s hall s erve c o n s e ­ c ut i v e t e r m s o n th e same Co u n c i l standing committee. 5.2.2.3. " 5.2.2.3. T he C o u n c i l R e v i s i o n 5 . 2 . 2 . 1 . 3 . Departmentallv Organized redrafted Colleges: The voting faculty of each departmentally organized college shall elect a member to each Council standing committee from two candidates for e a c h p o s i t i o n n o m i n a t e d b y th e c o l l e g e A d v i s o r y Council. "5.2.2.4. Non-College F a c u l t y : The non-college voting faculty shall elect one member to each of the Council standing c o m m i t ­ tees. The pattern of nomination and election shall be determined b y the non-college faculty group in cons u l t a ­ tion with the Office of the Secretary of the Faculties. - 26 - 372 "5.2.2.5. Residential Colleges "5.2.2.5.1. T h e vot i n g faculty of e a c h r e s i d e n t i a l c o l l e g e shall e l e c t a m e m b e r to each of three c o m m i t t e e s — the C u r r i c u l u m Committee, the E d u c a t i o n a l Policies Committee, and the C o m m i t t e e o n A c a d e m i c Governance. Th e s e m e m b e r s shali be e l e c t e d from t w o c a n d i d a t e s for e a c h p o s i t i o n nomin a t e d by the C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y Council. "5.2.2.5.2. In addition, the voting f a culty of the g r o u p of res i d e n t i a l c o l l e g e s shall jointly elect a m e m b e r to each c o u n c i l standing c o m m i t t e e e x c e p t the C u r r i c u l u m Committee, the Educatio n a l P olicies Committee, and the C o m m i t t e e on A c a d e m i c Governance. These m e m b e r s shall be e l e c t e d from two c a n d i d a t e s for each p o s i t i o n n o m i n a t e d jointly b y the C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y Co u n c i l s of the residential colleges. - 27 - "5.2.2.6. Two c o n n S ^ e e s of Sections namely, are e x c l u d e d 5.2.2.3., f r o m th e p u r v i e w 5.2.2.4., an d 5.2.2.5.2., th e S t u d e n t A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e and the C o m m i t t e e o n P u b l i c Safety. T h e m e m b e r s h i p of t h e s e c o m m i t t e e s is d e f i n e d in S e c t i o n s "5.2.2.7. 5.4.08.1, a nd 5.4.11.1. respectively. If a n e l e c t e d faculty member of a Council s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e is u n a b l e t o fill h i s o f f i c e for a t e r m or longer, a r e p l a c e m e n t m a y be a p p o i n t e d b y the r e s p e c t i v e C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l o r g r o u p of r e s i d e n t i a l C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y Councils." 5.2.3. - 5 . 2 . 3 . 2 . "5.2.3. The Council renumbered: Revisions 5.2.2.2. - 5.2.2.2.2., Student Membership "5.2.3.1. T h e t e r m of o f f i c e of s t u d e n t m e m b e r s of all Council standing conuuiLLeeS s h a l l b e Oils year. A student mem b e r m a y serve an additional term of office. Terms of office shall coincide with the academic year. "5.2.3.2. N o s t u d e n t m a y serve as a v o t i n g m e m b e r of m o r e th a n one C o u n c i l s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e 5 .2.3.3. - 5 . 2 . 3 . 4 . T h e Council Revisions reformulated: "5.2.3.3. Undergraduates: Council 5.2.2.2.3. at a time." - 5.2.2.2.4., Th e u n d e r g r a d u a t e m e m b e r s standing committee of a shall be in num b e r - 28 - 374 three or six: the n u m b e r va r i e s a c c o r d i n g to the rules laid d o w n h e r e a f t e r for each of the committees. "5.2.3.3.1. F o r the p u r p o s e of d i s t r i b u t i n g the u n d e r g r a d u a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s so far as p o s s i b l e a c c o r d i n g to c o m ­ p e t e n c y in the several areas of instruction, the c o l l e g e s p r i m a r i l y concerned with undergraduate educa­ t i o n shall be g r o u p e d as follows: the Liberal A r t s G r o u p : C o l l e g e of A r t s & Letters Justin Morrill College U n i v e r s i t y College the Social Science G r o u p : C o l l e g e of Business C o l l e g e of C o m m u n i c a t i o n Arts C o l l e g e of Education C o l l e g e of Human Ecology J a m e s M a d i s o n Coll e g e C o l l e g e of Social Science the Natural Science G r o u p ; C o l l e g e of A g r i c u l t u r e & Natural Resources C o l l e g e of Engineering C o l l e g e of Human Medicine - 29 - 375 Lyman Briggs C o l l e g e C o l l e g e of N a t u r a l S c i e n c e College of Osteopathic Medicine C o l l e g e of V e t e r i n a r y M e d i c i n e "5.2.3.3.2. Each of these groups is t o b e e q u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d in the s t a n d ­ ing c o m m i t t e e s of the Council. Thus, if three u n d e r g r a d u a t e m e m b e r s are to be chosen, one m e m b e r shall come from each of the groups; six members, t w o shall come if from e ach group. "5.2.3.3.3. The responsibility fo r es t a b l i s h i i the p r o c e d u r e s for d e t e r m i n i n g which colleges shall on a g i v e n o c c a s i o n be ca l l e d upon to elect undergraduate members w i t h the u n d e r g r a d u a t e shall lie stu dent re p r e s e n t a t i v e s on the A c a d e m i c Council (acting together w i t h the student r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the C o l l e g e s of H u m a n Medicine, O s t e o p a t h i c Medicine, inary M e d i c i n e ) . and V e t e r ­ The colleges c a l l e d upon to name m e m b e r s shall - 30 - 3 7 6 b e r e s p o n s i b l e fo r t h e i r o w n e l e c t i o n s a c c o r d i n g to p a t t e r n s a c c e p t a b l e to their constituencies. "5.2.3.3.4. Four c o m m i t t e e s — the C o m m i t t e e on Academic Governance; F a c u l t y Affairs, the c o m m i t t e e on Faculty Compensation, a n d A c a d e m i c B udget; o n P u b l i c Safety; the C o m m i t t e e a n d the S t u d e n t Affairs Committee — are e x c l u d e d f r o m th e p u r v i e w of S e c t i o n s 5 .2. 3 . 3 . 3 . committees 5.4.10.1., and "5.2.3.4. Graduate T h e m e m b e r s h i p of t h e s e is d e f i n e d in S e c t i o n s 5.4.03.1., 5.4.08.1. Students: 5.2.3.3 5.4.11.1., respectively. T h e m e m b e r s h i p of g r a d u a t e students on Council standing committees shall be as indicated in the sections governing membership for each of the standing committees. of Graduate Students (COGS) The Council shall be responsible for selecting these members." 5 .2 . 3 . 5 . "5.2.3.5. A n e w section to be substituted R e v i s i o n 5. 2 . 2 . 2 . 5 . : Student M e m b e r s — at—L a r g e ; for C o u n c i l To ensure a systematic r epresentation of the views of non-whites in the Council standing committees, two seats shall be reserved on each committee for m e m b e r s - a t - l a r g e . - 377 "5.2.3.5.X. At least one reserved "5.2.3.5.2. these seats shallbe fo r a n o n —w h i t e . M e m b e r s — a t — large in the standing committees "5.2.3.5.3. of shall be appointed. The appointments are to be ma d e b y the s t u d e n t m e m b e r s o f th e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l (representatives and representativesa t — large) acting in the role of a Student Committee on C o m m i t t e e s . Student Committee on Committees e l e c t it s o w n c h a i r m a n . m u s t be shall The chairman a representative—at—large. The Committee tions The shall invite recommenda­ from the Council of Graduate Students (COGS) a n d f r o m the o f f i c e s of ASM S U especially established for th e c o n d u c t o f m i n o r i t y a f f a i r s . "5.2.3.5.4. in each committee the seats of m e m bersat-large shall remain to be assigned* w h e t h e r o r n o t a n o n —w h i t e h a s b e e n n a m e d t o th e c o m m i t t e e independently u n d e r t h e r u l e s se t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n s 5.2.3.3. "5.2.3.5.5. — 5.2.3.4. The Committee on Faculty Affairs, Faculty Compensation, B u d g e t is e x c l u d e d of Section and Academic f r o m the p u r v i e w 5.2.3.5." - 32 - 378 5.2.3.6* "5.2.3.6. T h e C o u n c i l ' s R e v i s i o n 5. 2.2.2.6., amended: If a s t u d e n t m e m b e r o f a C o u n c i l s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e is u n a b l e t o fill h i s o f f i c e f or a t e r m o r longer, a replacement shall be appointed to serve for the r e m a i n d e r o f the a c a d e m i c y e a r b y the S t u d e n t C o m m i t t e e on C o m m i t t e e s 5.2.4. "5.2.4. - 5.3.3. The Council's Revisions re n u m b e r e d : (5.2.3.5.3.)." 5.2.3. - 5.3.3., The c h a i r m a n of e a c h C o u n c i l s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e in p a r t s hall s u b m i t an a n n u a l w r i t t e n r e p o r t t o t he S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e b y D e c e m b e r 31. Summaries of these reports shall be distributed to the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l , entire v o t i n g faculty. a nd t h r o u g h C o u n c i l m i n u t e s to the E a c h c h a i r m a n s h a l l k e e p the A c a d e m i c C o u ncil i n f o r m e d o f the w o r k o f h i s c o m m i t t e e by m e a n s of oral r e p o r t s at the m e e t i n g s o f t h e A c a d e m i c C o u ncil. "5.2.4.1. E l e c t e d m e m b e r s o f the C o u n c i l - s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e s s h a l l r e p o r t q u a rterly, e i t h e r o r a l l y o r in writing, to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e C o l l e g e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l s c o n c e r n i n g the w o r k of t h e i r c o m m i t t e e s . "5.2.5. W i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f the U n i v e r s i t y C u r r i c u l u m C o m m i t t e e , whose c h a i r m a n shall be n a m e d by the p r esident, U n i v e r s i t y C o m m i t t e e on F a c u l t y A f f a i r s , and A c a d e m i c Budget, and the Faculty Compensation, w h o s e c h a i r m a n shall be named as p r o ­ vided in S e c t i o n 5.2.5.1., all C o u n c i l s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e s shall e l e c t a c h a i r m a n a n n u a l l y in J a n u a r y from t h e i r own membership. - 33 - 379 ”5.2.5.1. T h e c h a i r m a n of the U n i v e r s i t y C o m m i t t e e on F a c u l t y Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and / A c a d e m i c B u d g e t shall be c h o s e n b y t he voti n g f a c u l t y of the U n i v e r s i t y a c c o r d i n g to the p a t ­ t e r n p r o v i d e d in S e c t i o n 4.5.1. of the S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e F a c u l t y Council, for the e l e c t i o n (except that the El e c t e d i n s t e a d of the A c a d e m i c Council, shall s el e c t two o f the n o m i n e e s and shall fill b y a p p o i n t m e n t a v a c a n c y o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g a term of o f f i c e ) . T h e c h a i r m a n of this c o m m i t t e e shall serve as a v o t i n g m e m b e r of t he c o m m i t t e e in a d d i ­ t i o n t o h i s c o l l e g e ' s o t h e r representative. He shall b e e l e c t e d at t he same time as the Steering Committee, be e l i g i b l e shall t a k e office o n J u l y 1, and shall for no m o r e than t w o c o n s e c u t i v e t e r m s of two y e a r s each. The c h a i r m a n of the U n i v e r s i t y C o m m i t t e e on F a c u l t y Affairs, Co m p e n s ation, Fac u l t y and A c a d e m i c B u d g e t shall be a vo t i n g m e m b e r of th e E lected F a c u l t y Council. ^ ^ • General Functions of C o u n c il S t a n d i n g C o m m i t t e e s "5.3.1. The C o u n c i l st a n d ing c o m m i t t e e s shall r e p r e s e n t their i c o n s t i t u e n c i e s in the i n t erest of the t otal University. "5.3.2. T h e C o u n c i l st a n d ing c o m m i t t e e s shall a d v i s e the A c a d e m i c Co u n c i l and a p p r o p r i a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s on matter, w i t h i n the p u r v i e w of the committees. - 34 - 380 "5.3.3. in the p e r f o r m a n c e of their various duties, co u n c i l s t a n d ­ ing com m i t t e e s m u s t often seek the expertise and a ssistance of b o t h individuals and a d m i n i strative units with i n the University. Accordingly, these committees are both e n c o u r ­ aged and a u t h o r i z e d to call on such individuals and a d m i n i s ­ trative units for advice and assistance, and individuals and a dministrative units are asked to render w h a t e v e r services are rea s o n a b l y r e q u e s t e d . " 5.4, - 5.4.12. *5.4. The Council revisions, t o g ether w i t h the i n s t i tution of a n e w standing c ommittee in 5.4.12. [minority student r epresentation has been c hanged from "one to three" (or "one to four") to "two student members-at-large" in each standing c o m m i t t e e ,j : Nature and Functions of the Several C ouncil S tanding Comm ittees "5.4.01. U n i versity C u r r i c u l u m Committee "5.4.01.1. The voting m e m b e r s h i p of the C u r r i c u l u m C o m m i t t e e shall co n s i s t of its elected faculty members, six u n d e r graduate students, one graduate student, at— large. and two student membe r s - The Registrar and a representative of the Provost's Office shall serve ex officio w i t h o u t vote. Add i t i o n a l ex officio non- voting mem b e r s m a y be included at the d i s ­ c r e t i o n of the committee." 5.4.01.2. "5.4.01.2. The Council Revision 5.4.1.2., C o l lege renumbered: faculty representatives elected to the University Cur r i c u l u m Comini ttoe shall - 35 - 381 serve as n o n — v o t i n g e x o f f i c i o m e m b e r s their respective [For 5.4.1.3. a n d r e s p e c t i v e l y .J "5.4.02. 5.4.1.4. read "5.4.01.3." University Educational "5.4.02.1. college curriculum committees and elected Committee three graduate student members-at-large. his designate vote. th e E d u c a t i o n a l shall consist of faculty members, students, "5.4.01.4." Policies Committee T h e v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p of Policies of shall it s six u n d e r g r a d u a t e students, The and two Provost and/or serve ex officio without Additional ex officio non-voting m e m ­ bers may be i n c l u d e d at the d i s c r e t i o n of the committee." [For 5.4.2.2. a n d respective ly } 5.4.2.3. read "5.4.02.2." and "5.4.02.3." [The w h o l e o f S e c t i o n 5 . 4 . 3 . (i.e., 5 . 4 . 3 . — 5 . 4 . 3 . 3 . , t h e s e c t i o n on the U n i v e r s i t y F a c u l t y A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e i n t h e p r e s e n t B y l a w s ) is to be deleted.} "5.4.03. University Committee on Faculty Affairs, pensation, "5.4.03.1. and Academic The Faculty Com­ Budget v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p of the C o m m i t t e e Faculty Affairs, Academic Budget faculty members. an ex Faculty Compensation, on and shall c o n s i s t of its e l e cted The Provost shall officio non—voting member. serve as Additional 382 ex officio non-voting members and con sultants f r o m th e U n i v e r s i t y m a y b e i n c l u d e d a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o m m i t t e e . " "5.4.04. University Faculty Tenure Committee "5.4.04.1. T h e v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p of t he F a c u l t y T e n u r e C o m m i t t e e s h a l l c o n s i s t o f its e l e c t e d f a c u l t y m e m bers, three undergraduate students one g r a d u a t e student, at - l a r g e . Office and two student members A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e shall Provost's s e rve e x o f f i c i o w i t h o u t 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 . 0 4 . 3 . , " " 5 . 4 . 0 4 . 4 . , " " 5 . 4 . 0 4 . 5 . , " a n d "5.4.04.6. respectively. C o u n c i l R e v i s i o n 5.4.4.5., c o n c e r n i n g j u d i c i a l {case appeal) fun c t i o n s , h a s b e e n deleted^) (Note that C o u n c i l R e v i s i o n 5.4.4.5. c o n c e r n i n g t he U n i v e r s i t y Faculty T e n u r e C o m m i t t e e ' s r e p o r t t o the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l on their d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o the i n c l u s i o n of s t u d e n t s in the j u d i c i a l (case appeal) f u n c t i o n o f the c o m m i t t e e h as b e e n deleted ^ "5.4.04.7. The rules 2.5.9.5. l a i d d o w n in S e c t i o n s 2.5.3. - s h a l l be u n d e r s t o o d t o g o v e r n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and v o t i n g at the u n i v e r s i t y as w e l l as at the d e p a r t m e n t a l , institute and college "5.4.05. school, level. University Committee on Honors Programs "5.4.05.1. T h e v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p of the H o n o r s Programs C o m m i t t e e s h a l l c o n s i s t of its e l e c t e d faculty members, one g r a d u a t e six u n d e r g r a d u a t e students, student, and two s t u d e n t m e m b e r s - 37 - 383 at-large. T h r e e o f th e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s be members of the Honors College, the students of the college; graduates College, shall chosen by the other u n d e r ­ shall not be m e m b e r s of the Honors but they m u s t be or h a v e b e e n 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 m e m b e r s of the Honors college, or be or h a v e b e e n e n r o l l e d in Honors courses or programs, degrees or have completed baccalaureate in Honors programs. T h e D i r e c t o r of the Honors College s h a l l s e r v e as a n esc o f f i c i o n o n —v o ting member. Additional ex officio non­ voting members ma y be included at t h e d i s c r e ­ tion of the committee." (For 5.4.5.2. a n d respectively.-} "5.4.06. 5.4,5.3. read "5.4.05.2." and "5.4.05.3." University International Projects Committee "5.4.06.1. The voting m e m b e r s h i p of the International Projects Committee elected s h a l l c o n s i s t of it s faculty members, students, two graduate Programs undergraduate students, student members-at-large. International three an d t w o The Dean of s h a l l s e r v e as a n ex o f f icio non-voting member. Additional - 38 - 384 ex o f f i c i o n o n — v o t i n g m e m b e r s m a y be included at the discretion [For 5 . 4 . 6 . 2 . , 5 . 4 . 6 . 3 . , a n d 5 . 4 . 6 . 4 . and " 5 . 4 . 0 6 . 4 . " respectively.]] "5.4.07. University "5.4.07.1. read the c o m m i t t e e . " "5.4.06.2.," "5.4.06.3., Library Committee The voting membership Committee shall two graduate serve tional the of Library its elected undergraduate and two students student The Director of ex officio without mem­ Libraries vote. Addi­ ex o f f i c i o n o n —v o t i n g me m b e rs m a y be included 5.4.7.3. three students, b e r s — at— large . shall of consist faculty members, (For 5 . 4 . 7 . 2 . a n d r e s p e c t i v e l y .]) of at the read discretion "5.4.07.2." and of the committee." "5.4.07.3." (sections 5 . 4 . 8 . 1 . a n d 5 . 4 . 8 . 3 . o f t h e p r e s e n t B y l a w s h a v e b e e n expunged in o r d e r t o m a k e w a y f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g C o u n c i l revisions]] "5.4.08. University Student Affairs Committee "5.4.08.1. Student Affairs The University shall be be composed selected colleges selected ( COGS), Students among according students two Council to the to the 6.1.4. of the appointed of M i c h i g a n (ASMSU); four gr a d u at e by the and basis in S e c t i o n undergraduate the Associated University faculty members University outlined B y l a w s ? five by six on a rotating of the procedures of Committee State students of Graduate Students student members-at-large. - 39 - 585 The Vice President for S t u d e n t A f f a i r s the D e a n of Students shall and serve ex officio without v o t e . A d d i t i o n a l ex o f f i c i o n o n - v o t i n g members may be i n c l u d e d at t h e d i s c r e t i o n of the committee. " 5 . 4.08.2. The Student Affairs Committee study, shall examine, a n d e v a l u a t e a ll p o l i c i e s Office of the Vice President as t h e y a f f e c t a c a d e m i c for Student Affairs achievement U n i v e r s i t y and advise the Vice Student Affairs, of the in t h e President th e D e a n of S t u d e n t s , for and the Academic Council thereupon. "5.4.08.3. The Student Affairs Committee amendments shall initiate and review proposed amendments (1) t h e A c a d e m i c F r e e d o m R e p o r t w i t h e x c e p t i o n of S e c t i o n s 2.1.4.9 an d of students; provided, t h a t an y a m e n d m e n t a f f e c t i n g fessional faculty (3) r e l a t i n g to t h e a c a d e m i c r i g h t s a n d responsibilities ever, t he a n d 2.2; (2) G e n e r a l S t u d e n t R e g u l a t i o n s ; policies to rights th e p r o ­ and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the (as th e E l e c t e d F a c u l t y c o u n c i l prets these how­ rights and responsibilities) inter­ must b e a p p r o v e d b y the E l e c t e d F a c u l t y C o u n c i l b e f o r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y th e A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l . - 40 - 386 The Council s h a l l r e f u s e to c o n s i d e r an y a m e n d m e n t o r r e v i s i o n of S e c t i o n s 2 .1.4.9 a n d 2.2 o f th e A c a d e m i c F r e e d o m R e p o r t u n t i l the proposed change has received the e n d o r s e ­ ment of the University Committee on F a c u l t y Affairs, Faculty Compensation, and Academic B u d g e t an d t he a p p r o v a l of the E l e c t e d Faculty Council. ”5.4,08.4. T h e S t u d e n t A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e s h a l l ass u m e the d u t i e s of the C o m m i t t e e o n A c a d e m i c R i g h t s and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s d e s c r i b e d in S e c t i o n 2.3 o f t h e A c a d e m i c F r e e d o m Report. 4.09. University Committee on Business Affairs "5.4.09.1. Th e v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p o f th e C o m m i t t e e o n B u s i n e s s Affairs bers, s h a l l c o n s i s t o f its e l e c t e d three undergraduate stude n t s , students, faculty m e m ­ two graduate a nd t w o s t u d e n t m e m b e r s - a t - l a r g e . Vice President for B u s i n e s s and Finance, with two other persons f r o m the b u s i n e s s s e r v i c e g r o u p s d e s i g n a t e d b y the V i c e for B u s i n e s s a n d Finance, n o n - v o t i n g membe r s . The together and President s hall s e r v e as esc o f f i c i o A d d i t i o n a l ex o f f i c i o n o n ­ v o t i n g m e m b e r s m a y be i n c l u d e d at the d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o m m i t t e e . " n 5.4.9.2. and 5 . 4 . 9 . 3 . read "5.4.09.2." and "5.4.09.3." respectively! - 41 - 387 "5.4.10. U n i v e r s i t y Commit-tee o n A c a d e m i c G o v e r n a n c e "5.4.10.1. The vo ting m e m b e r s h i p of the Co m m i t t e e Academic Governance faculty member member one from each college, representing student member according of one n o n —c o l l e g e from each one faculty faculty, college (selected established by the c o l l e g e s ) , two student m e m b e r s —a t — l a r g e , and one faculty member additional lower on Committees The Committee the so as to r e p r e s e n t on Academic the Governance shall a continuing re vi e w of the Bylaws of the Faculty with the making recommendations whatever changes investigations Specifically, Governance of the selected by f a c u l t y ranks. undertake "5.4.10.3. the to p r o c e d u r e s Committee "5.4.10.2. shall consist on to the C o u n c i l in the Byl a w s for for the Committee's indicate. the Committee shall conduct steps being versity to involve government responsibility taken on A c a demic a continuing throughout students study the Uni­ in a c a d e m i c in accordance w i t h the procedures established by these B y l a w s . "5.4.11. University Committee "5.4.11.1. The on Public Safety v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p of the C o m m i t t e e Public Safety shall cons ist of seven on faculty - 42 - 388 members to be (two f r o m t h e selected colleges f a c u l t y ranks) on a rotating basis of the procedures lower University outlined am o n g the according to the in S e c t i o n 6.1.4. of the B y l a w s ; four undergraduate students b y the A s sociated of M i c h i g a n State University Students (ASMSU); one graduate selected by the Council (COGS); and two The Director and the Safety members. ma y be student of Graduate Students student members-at-large. of the School of Criminal Justice Director of the Department shall appointed serve as e x of Public officio non-voting ot h e r ex o f f i c i o n o n - v o t i n g members i n c l u d e d a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n of th e Committee." "5.4.11.2. The Committee policies on Public affecting the public University community. Committee on Public evaluate public and policies, Provost, The Committee regular, the Safety and shall Council examine s a f e t y of shall safety services, advise the study and facilities, the Public the President, Safety, and thereupon. on Public Safe ty open meetings academic shall Specifically, the D i r e c t o r of the Academic "5.4.11.3. Safety shall hold at which m e m b e r s community may bring to the of - 43 a t t e n t i o n oil ? h e c o m m i t t e e the public "5.4.11.4. issues a f f e c t i n g s a f e t y of the U n i v e r s i t y . The co mm itt ee on Public S a f e t y under continuous s t u d y c u r r e n t a nd p r o j e c t e d n e e d s of the U n i v e r s i t y w i t h safety, '5.4.12. r e s p e c t to p u b l i c and r e c o m m e n d a p p r o p r i a t e University Committee on Building, "5.4.12.1. s hall p l a c e Lands, action. a nd P l a n n i n g T h e v o t i n g m e m b e r s h i p o f th e C o m m i t t e e Building, Lands, i ts e l e c t e d s tude n t s , an d P l a n n i n g faculty members, one graduate members-at-large. s h a l l c o n s i s t of t h ree u n d e r g r a d u a t e stpdent, an d t w o s t u d e n t T h e E x e c u t i v e V i c e P r e sident, the D i r e c t o r o f C a m p u s D i r e c t o r of S p a c e on P a r k and planning, Utilization, the an d the U n i v e r ­ s i t y A r c h i t e c t s h a l l s e r v e ex o f f i c i o w i t h o u t "5.4.12.2. vote. Additional ex officio non-voting members may be a d d e d at t he d i s c r e t i o n of th e comm i t t e e . The committee ing s p e c i f i c " 5 . 4 . 1 2 . 2 . 1. s h a l l be c h a r g e d w i t h the follow­ responsibilities: S t u d y i n g an d m a k i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s with respect to b u i l d i n g p r i o r i t i e s o p U n i v e r s i t y prop e r t y . " 5 . 4 . 12.2.2. S t u d y i n g and m a k i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to p r o p o s a l s for land utilization on university property. - 44 590 "5.4.12.2.3. Studying and making recommendations with respect to the ecological cations of impli­ l a n d u t i l i z a t i o n a nd b u i l d i n g proposals. "5.4.12.2.4. Studying with "5.4.12.2.5. and m a k i n g recommendations r e s p e c t to t r a f f i c p l a n n i n g . Studying and making recommendations th e a p p e a r a n c e and on l o c a t i o n of b u i l d i n g s w i t h respect t o bot h functional and aesthetic "5.4.12.2.6. Advising criteria. the President of the university co n c e r n i n g the appearance financing, of p h y sical University property, l o c a t i o n and facilities on and informing the A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l o f its r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . " 6.2.1. -6 . 2 . 1 . 2 . D e l e t e t h e s e and renumber sections in the p r e s e n t B y l a w s , S e c t i o n s 6.2.2. - 6 . 2 . 2 . 2 . as follows: for 6.2.2. r e a d 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 . December 3, 1970 Delete these sections i n th e p r e s e n t B y l a w s .