M§U Faculty Ncew§ Vol. 2,No.12 Michigan State University Jan. 12, 1971 University's faculty rating goes up in national survey The quality of Michigan State's graduate faculty in several selected disciplines - notably the physical and biological sciences - has risen Significantly in the past five years. The same is true for the effectiveness of selected MSU doctoral programs. That's the judgment of some 6,000 scholars from across the nation who rated the graduate faculties of 130 institutions in 36 diSCiplines. The the ratings, compiled in 1969 for American Council on Education, were released last week. They are compared with similar ACE ratings conducted in 1964. Graduate faculties at this university are listed in the ratings of 30 of the 36 diSCiplines which ACE evaluated. MSU graduate faculty quality was ranked in the highest category ("strong" to "distinguished") in 12 fields; the 1964 study rated only three MSU departmental fa~ulties in this category. The highest rating was earned by botany, where graduate faculty quality was ranked ninth in the nation, tied with Cornell, Botany was the highest ranked (13th) MSU graduate faculty in the 1964 report. Other high - ranking graduate faculties in the new survey included: Entomology (12th), population biology (13th), sociology (17th), zoology (18th), psychology (20th), chemistry (tied for 24th), electrical engineering (24th), physiology (25th), microbiology (24th) , biochemistry (28th), and molecular biology (29th). MSU reactions, page 2 EIGHT OF the 12 high - rated areas at MSU were judged to have improved in quality over the 1964 survey. Of the other four, sociology held its 1964 rank, biochemistry at MSU was not included in the 1964 survey, and both molecular biology and population biology are listed as disciplines for the first time. In a category which rated "effectiveness of doctoral program," 11 of the 12 top diSCiplines here ranked in the top 30 nationally. Electrical engineering's numerical rank in this category was not given. MSU disciplines where graduate faculty quality rated "good" (the category immediately below "strong" to "distinguished") are: English, philosophy, anthropology, economics (rated under social sciences in the survey), geography, history, political science, mathematics, physics, developmental biology, civil engineering and mechanical engineering. Graduate faculty quality at Michigan State was rated "adequate - plus" in these areas: French, German, music, geology, and chem}cal Spanish, engineering. Improving in rank or appearing for the first time are : English, French, German, philosophy, Spanish, anthropology, history, mathematics, chemical engineering, and mechanical' engineering. Seve'ral areas in which MSU offers doctoral programs are not rated, including such colleges as agriculture, business (except economics), communication arts, education, human ecology, human medicine and veterinary medicine. ~ContiJiued on page 2) Council to meet today Three more amendments to the report on student participation in academic government will be proposed at today's academic council meeting at 3: 15 p.m. in the Con Con Room of the In,ternational Center. The three proposed amendments will be presented by Sandra A. Warden, interim chairman of the University Faculty Affairs Committee. One amendment relates to the frequency of mandatory reports to be made by representatives of standing committees to their respective constituencies or advisory councils. Two other amendments relate to the University Curriculum Committee, the selection of its chairman and the position of an executive secretary. Other items on the agenda include: - The Dec. 2, 1970, and Jan. 12, the University 1971, reports from Curriculum Committee; - Report from the Steering Committee regarding procedures for reconsideration of the proposed University Committee on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Compensation. - A proposal from the Educational Policies Committee to eliminate a required 1.5 minimum grade for students with 85 or more credits. Currently, the 1.5 grade is required for such students to receive credit in a course. Faculty Club John D. Shingleton, directOI of the Placement Bureau, and three business recruiters will speak today at 12 noon at the Faculty Club. From Massey to Taylor: Two (Student) Mark Bathurst (Professor) Thomas Greer • VleWS Between the Academic Council, Faculty Steering Committee, department and subcommittee meetings, Thomas H. Greer, professor of humanities, figures he's spent hundreds of hours during the last three years discussing student participation in academic government. He says he has long been an advocate of student participation, particularly through student adVisory committees. that close rapport with "I felt students was essential," he said. He has also long been involved in the faculty role in academic government, recalling that he was a member of the committee which developed the original faculty constitution. And he remembers, when the Academic Council was established less than a decade ago, that former President John Hannah and other administrators asked the same questions about faculty that faculty today are asking about students. THE ISSUE, Greer says, has been divisive in the faculty. But, he adds, "how else do you get changes? It shows life in a faculty, and I'm not upset about that at all." He also said that the divisive issue of student participation has served to clarify faculty thinking, leading to a "breakthrough," in faculty attitudes. "I believe a solid faculty majority believes student participation is a desirable thing," he said. «The differences are in how much and in what way." Three years ago, when the first report on student participation was released, this wasn't the case. T ha t original report, the Massey Report, was considered far too extreme, Mark Bathurst was a freshman when the Massey Report on student participation in academic government was being written. Three years and three documents later, he is a junior and vice chairman of ASMSU, and is still waiting for a final decision on the issue. The decision may COme at next week's Academic Senate meeting. Bathurst, who has followed the three documents closely, expresses disappointment and frustrations after. three years. But he says he "wouldn't say we ever gave up hope," and is willing, if necessary, to work on a fourth report. From the Massey (original) Report to the Taylor (current) Report, Bathurst has these reactions: The Massey Report: He was pleased with it, he said. But he said it was "rather ambiguous, and I knew there would be "recommendations and objections." Bathurst said he wasn't surprised when that report went to a second committee, chaired by James McKee, professor of sociology, The McKee Report: "An awfully lot of work," he said. When that report was not accepted by the Academic Senate last spring, he was disappOinted, he said, but "I got over it fast. We'd heard the rumors that there "was no way it would pass." The Taylor Report: There were no students on that three - member panel, though students were involved through, hearings, Bathurst said that students "feIt excluded the Taylor deliberations," though they had been closely involved in deliberations with the two previous committees. It's been pointed out that the Taylor panel was established to deal with the Senate's the McKee specific objections from to Greer: A "bre.lkthrough" in attit udes. (Continued on page 4) Bathurst: There's still hope. (Continued on page 4) MSO Faculty News; Jan. 1<2, 1971 F acuIty quality ranked • • • (Concluded from page 1) THE ACE report, "A rating .of Graduate Programs," is coauthored by Kenneth D. Roose, former council vice president, and Charles J. Andersen, a member of the ACE staff. The new survey is "essentially replication" of the 1964 report, "An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education," by Allan Cartter. More than 26,000 copies of the Cartter report have thus far been' distri,buted, according to the ACE. Roose and Andersen explain that their purpose "is to furnish prospective graduate students with information on faculties and programs." They add: "Beyond this function, however, we hope the ratings will assist academic administrators in making Letter Senate should honor pledge To the Editor: Last May, the Academic Senate the general principle of endorsed student participation in the academic government, and for eight months the battle has raged, over the mechanics of participation. Not everyone is satisfied with the outcome, commonly called the Taylor Report; some faculty members feel that there are too few safeguards for faculty prerogatives and ultimately for faculty job security. Some students feel that vital principks have been sacrificed in revising the McKee Report. that not everyone will be satisfied, but to delay any longer the implementation of the principle of student participation seems fruitless. To strain again the patience of committee members, to embroil the Academic Council again in weeks of debate, again over philosophies and principles already adopted is wasteful of time and energy which could be better spent in more direct means of education. Compromise to agonize implies On the other hand, an ostrich - like position advocating nothing, hoping that this too will pass, is unrealistic. The history of American higher education - the peaceful decade of '50's the notwithstanding - has often involved stormy clashes between students and faculty. Rejecting the Taylor Report in the hope that students will again become apathetic is short - Sighted. The adversary relationship between students and faculty will not end, but it can be carried from the pages of the State News and from the picket lines into an academic forum for discussion and debate. We encourage the faculty members to attend the Academic Senate meeting on Jan. 19 and to vote to operationalize their commitment of last May. The Coordinating Committee, Students in Academic Government AA UP meeting The MSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors will meet next Monday (Jan. 18) at 7:30 p.m. in Room 35, Union Building. The agenda includes a discussion of _ the Taylor Report, a report on changes in the proposed committee on compensation and academic budget, and a discussion of whether the AAUP should seek to become a bargaining agent here. and are clamoring for - judgments about allocations of resources and support to graduate in this time of programs. Further, inc reased concern over the accountability of higher education, public authorities and policymakers need - measures to help them determine the success or shortCOmings of current policies and to assist them in planning for higher education." , Roose and Andersen- emphasize that the study has tried "to deemphasize the pecking - order relationship> inherent in most scoring systems, for it is not our purpose to bolster or deflate egos. We have, therefore, not presented scores for individual institutions." THE REPORT notes that nationally the most dramatic development in graduate education since 1964 "is the improvement in the rated quality of faculty in a large number of graduate programs." Of the 1 ,600 programs rated in 1964, about three - fourths of them showed an increase in 1969 in the quality of graduate faculty. But it also showed that nearly 30 percent of the 1,600 programs rated in 1969 scored less than 2.0 on a 5.0 scale, which would classify them as marginally adequate. Roose and Andersen listed these concerns: *While many graduate programs have improved, "we must stress the need to give equivalent recognition and support to the improvement of undergraduate programs, for many institutions have increasingly sensitive to become deficiencies and inadequacies of their baccalaureate offerings." *There is "apparent duplication of program resources," especially among some public institutions in a given state who strive for excellence in identical fields. *It may no longer be feasible to add in areas of quality and programs "relatively abundant production" of traditional Ph.D. degrees. "From the standpoint of national policy," the authors say, "consideration must be given to the possibility that in the future a more than sufficient supply of Ph.D's for most traditional uses can be trained in the graduate programs of, say, 50 or so top - rated institutions." Copies of the full report, "A Rating of Graduate Programs," are available at $4 each from the American Council on Education, One Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. 20036. The MS U reaction: Use care in , concluding from survey report is a list of institutions from which faculty "judges" received their doctorates. the 6,000 (The report's authors said tha.t each of the 130 participating institutions was asked to furnish the names of from one to four scholars in each of the 36 disciplines rated. TWO ADMINISTRATORS from the' College of Natural Science, Richard U. Byerrum and James W. Butcher, said they were pleased with the improvement shown by MSU's ratings in the physical and biological sciences. Butcher, assistant dean of the college, , ~:ud he was impressed by these findings: There are no weak programs ( in natural is a gratifyingly uniform level of excellence (nine departments in the top ranking). None of our programs has peaked out qualitatively;" science), and there Byerrum, dean of natural science, said that MStrs rating improVIDent indicates that some of the young faculty in members are already having an impact in their fields. lIe also said that high ratings were beneficial in that they could help MSU scientists and programs continue to earn significant amounts of federal support. ' THE DEAN of social science, C. L. Winder, said he viewed the survey as valid, but he also warned against drawing too many inferences from the results. Winder said that the ratings would not necessarily have direct impact on future decisions and policies in graduate education. Minkel agreed with this contention. He said that future decision - making in graduate education probably won't involve much "overt, conscious action based on this survey." The support that various areas receive, Minkel said, is determined largely by the demand for graduate education in the diSCiplines and by the dynamism of the faculty. - GENE RIETFORS Few administrators at Michigan State found reason to challenge the newly released quality rating of American graduate programs, but several expressed the need to be cautious in dmwing conClusions from the report. ":rhere should be no cause to discount the report, some said, because the University's graduate faculties are rated highly ("strong" to "distinguished") in 12 diSCiplines, and graduate faculties here appear in the rankings of 30 to 36 disciplines surveyed. The report is based on a 1969 survey of 130 graduate institutions by the American Council on Education. It reveals that Michigan State has momentum in a number of disciplines, since its ratings in 14 areas were higher than they were in a 1964 report. The University's graduate faculties in five other disciplines were rated for the first time. "IF YOU consider the report for what it is and the way it was dooe, it's an excellent job," noted Clarence W. Minkel, associate dean of the graduate school. But Minkel suggested several factors for consideration before conclusions are drawn from the study: There are some 2,600 institutions of higher education in the U.S., only about 325 of which have "substantial" graduate programs. Only 130 schools were included in the ACE the survey, and highest rank was usually reserved for no more than 30 institutions. in each discipline On the basis of these figures, he noted, inclusion in the survey itself is an acknowledgement of excellence, and a (MSU was in any area mentioned in 30 of 36 disciplines) is even further acknowledgement. rating Minkel noted that broad areas in which MSU has notably strong programs, such as agriculture, business and education, were not included in the survey. some 6,000 He also pointed out that the survey, which polled faculty members at the 130 institutions, should favor those universities which have been producing doctoral - holders' over a long period. MSU, he added, has only recently -become a major producer of doctorates. (As recently as 1950, the University awarded only 38 doctorates. The total grew to 368 in 1965, to 530 in 1969, and to 676 last year.) Minkel observed that potentially useful information not included in the The faculty's quality: Up signiiicantly in some areas. - Photo by Bili Mitcham 'The road to . the top • open' lS You don't have to have a Phi Beta Kappa key or wealthy, well - schooled parents to become president of an American university. According to the author of a new book just published at Michigan State, the. sons of farmers, laborers and blue collar workers are prominent among the current or recent heads of American institutions of higher learning. In h.is book, ''Profiles of American College Presidents," Michael R. Ferrari compares and contrasts the origins, family influences, social mobility, education, career and role perceptions of 760 representative university presidents. Ferrari is now an assistant professor of management at Kent State University. The book, which evolved from a 'doctoral dissertation completed at MSU in 1968, contains a foreword by the late anthropologist - sociologist W. Lloyd Warner, who was Ferrari's thesis adviser. "THIS STUDY demonstrates," Warner wrote , "that .. the road to the top is open and can be traversed alltheway by men and women of talent, ability and the necessary training. " Warner pointed out that the 760 men and women presidents were carefully drawn .from all types of U.S. colleges and universities - Catholic, Protestant, public and private, black and white, large and small, undergraduate and established graduate institutions. In a chapter on "Presidential Profiles," Ferrari presents in capsule form the characteristics of nine categories of academic leaders, from public and Catholic university presidents to independent liberal arts college presidents and the heads of technological institutions. According to the author, "More American college and university presidents come from professional and executive backgrounds than from lower - level occupations, the only exceptions being presidents . of Catholic institutions whose fathers held lower and medium level occupl!tions." IN BRIEF, these are his other fiOdings: *Forty percent of the presidents in the study were born in rural communities under 2,400 population, and 20 percen t came from small towns under 25,000. * Forty-three percent of the presidents' paternal grandfathers were farmers and nearly 45 percent of their parents did not graduate from high school. I,J,. *Wives of presidents come from occupational levels similar to those of the preSidents themselves. *The average president holds a doctorate and has been in his position for about eight years; he attained his status when he was 45. Most have had about 10 years' full- time academic administrative experience. COMPARISONS OF preSidents of nine different types of institutions, however, reveal some interesting differences. For example, half of the public university presidents but none of the Catholic university preSidents were born in rural communities. More than half of the Catholic presidents were born in large cities in New York, Pennsylvania or Illinois, while half of the Protestant - related university preSidents were born in small towns and rural communities in North Central states. Ferrari found that fathers of independent university presidents came mainly from pOSitions as major business executives, business owners, lawyers and clergy. Nearly half of this group of presidents were born in the New England and Middle Atlantic states, one - third in large cities. ABOUT A third of the presidents moved their to the presidency prese~t institution. This was particularly true among Catholic university presidents. from other posts within The study also features quotes from the presidents regarding their perceptions of their careers. Wrote One: "I accepted the challenge of the presidency because I thought I could affect the lives of a greater number of people . . . I also though the presidency presented in one package the 'complete challenge' to all that a man had. It was dangerous; it was costly; it was adventuresome; it was exhausting; and yet it was refreshing and invigorating. It was an adequate substitute for total, . "" war!" The volume adds to earlier studies concerning America's studies conducted by business and government leaders - Warner in 1955 and 1963. "Profiles of American College Presidents" is a publication of the MSU Business Studies series produced by the Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration. - GAIL MORRIS Student regulations listed or answers to any examination or assignment to be given at a subsequent date. 4.02 - No student shall, without proper authorization, complete, in part or in total, any examination or assignment for another person. 4.03 - No student shall, without proper authorization, knowingly allow any examination or assignment to be completed, in part or in total, for him by another person. 6.05 - No student shall, without proper authorization, enter or in any construction area, building under construction, tunnel or rest room of the opposite sex. remain 6.06 - No student shall, without proper authorization, enter or in any University building when it is officially closed (as per hours posted on all entrances). remain The' General Student Regulations (printed below) were approved by the Board of Trustees in November to serve on an interim basis until a code of University regulations is developed for students, staff and faculty, according to Eldon R. Nonnamaker, dean of students. Developed by the University Student Affairs Committee, the regulations have also been approved by the Academic Council and ASMSU. 1.01 = The Michigan State University Section 1.00 - Statement of Purpost:. the following Community hereby adopts General Student Regulations that apply to all registered students and are essential in order to secure the successful operation of the University, maintain good order, promote the designed objectives of the University and improper obviate unneccssary and interferences with University aptivities. Section 2.00 - E;:,forcement: The enforcement of these regulations shall be the responsibility of the duly established University agencies. / 2.02 - All members of the University community are responsible for the support of these regulations. 2.01 4".04-No student shall knOwingly plagiarize or copy the work of another person and submit it as his own. Section 5.00 - Records and Identification: If the University community is to function effectively it must be able to rely upon the accuracy of information contained in its official records and upon the materials used to identify its members. 5.01 - No student shall knOwingly provide false information to the University for any purpose. 5.02 - No student shall, with intent to defraud, alter or forge any official University document, including identification materials issued by the University. 5.03 - No student shall, with intent to allow University defraud, knowingly documents, including identification, that were issued for his use, to be used by another person. Section 3.00 - Ad/udication: 3.01 - The University Judiclai System shall have jurisdiction over all General Student Regulations, and, upon a verdict of guilt, will set penalty on the basis of an established Disciplinary Code. ' , " < Sec.tion 4.00 - Scho/ars!lip and Grades: The principles of ;1:ruth and honesty are recognized as fundamental to a community of scholars. The University expects that students will honor these principles and in so doing protect the integrity of the University grading system. 4.01 - No student shall knowingly, without proper authorization, procure, provide or accept any materials which contain qllestions Section 6.00 - Univ ersity Facilities, MaterialS and :Services: The facilities aii'd educational materials provided by the University are important to the accomplishment of its objectives and must be protected. 6.01 - No student shall, without proper remove any University authorization, property from its assigned place. 6.02 - No student shall, without proper authorization, intentionally damage, deface 'or destroy any University property. 6.03 - No student shall, without proper authorization convey any University property to another person. 6.04 - No student shall knowlingly accept any University property procured for him without proper authorization. 6.07 - No student shall, without proper authorization, procure, manufacture, or have manufactured a University key, key card or unlocking device. 6.08 - No student shall knowingly refuse to legitimate fmancial meet, when due, a obligation to the University. 6.09 - No student shall, without proper authorization, sell or make contracts for purchase or delivery of any merchandise or services. 6.10 - No student shall, without proper authorization , erect posters or handbills which advertise any commercial product, service, or activity except on his personal property . Section 7. 00 - The Individual: If the University is to accomplish its many objectives, there must be recognition that the integrity of the individual is of primary importance. 7.01 - No student shall appropriate the property of another person, permanently or temporarily , without the permission of the owner. 7.02 shall knowingly student endanger the health or safety of another person. - No 7.03 - No student shall, without proper authorization, possess or use any firearm or explosive material on grounds gOverned by these regulations. 7.04 - No student shall intentionally interfere with the educational or service functions of the University to such an extent that his activity prohibits the continuation of any of those functions. . MSU Faculty News, Jan. 12, 1971 IDIDI. Tuesday, Jan. 12 - 7 p.m.: "Courts, Warts and All" is a discussion of allowing TV cameras in the courtroom, with CBS' Walter Cronkite and Los .Angeles attorney Kevin O'Connell. Wednesday, Jan. 13 - 7 p.m. : "Music from Michigan State" features guitarist James Kalal. Friday, Jan. 15 7 p.m.: The Gay - Liberation Movement is among topics examined on "Assignment 10." Sunday, Jan. 17 - 12 noon: Atlantic magazine's Elizabeth Drew interviews John Gardner, former HEW secretary. 12:30 p.m.: A study of Rembrandt is narrated by actor James Mason on '''Realities'' 6 p.m.: "The Great American Dream Machine" is a new series that travels the U.S. to examine interesting people, art, music, ideas and problems. 10 p.m.:' "Big Fish, Little Fish" is featured on "Hollywood Television Theatre." The Broadway comedy stars William Windom, Bill Bixby and Ann B. Davis. Monday, Jan. i8 - 7 p.m. : "Spartan Sportlite" focuses on MSU basketball, wrestling and swimming action. IOBII Tuesday, Jan. 12 - 1 p.m. (AM) ): Senator Birch Bayh discusses the need for electoral reform. 8: 30 p.m. (FM) : The Boston Symphony in concert. Wednesday, Jan. 13 - 1 p.m. (AM): "Justice in America," part 2 with Prof. J'Jhn Molloy. Thursday, Jan. 14 - 11:30 a.m. (AM): "It Began May 4" is a special on the President's Commission on Campus Unrest. 1 p.m. (FM): "Zorba" is the feature on "Music Theatre." Saturday, Jan. 16 - 2 p.m. (FM): "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" is the production from the Metropolitan Opera. Sunday, Jan. 17 - 2 p.m. (AM-FM) The Cleveland Orchestra performs. 4 p.m. (AM-FM): Ramsey Clarlc discusses American justice, and Carl Rowen talks about the press on "From the Midway." WMSB shows cited by USIA Fifteen television shows produced at MSU have been selected by the United States Information Agency (USIA) for distribution throughout the world early this year. The programs, originated by WMSB-TV, include the nine - parLseries, "Beethoven: Sonatas for Violin and three - program "Van Piano," Cliburn International Piano Competition," and three recitals from "Y oung Musical Artists." the The Beethoven series was produced by Donald A. Pash, WMSB fine arts program associate, and the reci~als were produced by Thomas L. Turk, WMSB fine arts producer. M§1IJ Faculty NteW§ Editor: Gene Rietfors Associate Editor: Beverly Twitchell Editorial Offices: Rooms 323 and 324, Linton Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48823. Phone: 355-2285. Published weekly during the September - June the Department o( academic year by Information Services. Second - class postage paid at East Lansing, , Mich. 48823. MSU Faculty News, Jan. 12, 1971 COGS weighs minority representation , I A suggestion the Council of that Graduate Students include special seats student for minority and representatives was discussed at the COGS meeting last week, but no action was taken. foreign The suggestion came during discussion of revision of the COGS constitution. Because minority and foreign students are a "significant constituency" but "do not seem to be systematically included" in COGS representation, David Wright, COGS vice president for University affairs, suggested that seats for them be provided. He also urged that any such representatives be elected by their constituencies, but he suggested no specific procedures for doing so. Thomas Greer • • • (Concluded from page 1) Greer said. "I remember a sort of shock at the suggestion of students voting." That, plus the proposed addition of substantial numbers of students to most standing committees, made the report to most faculty, seem "outrageous" Greer said. WHEN THE Massey Report was revised and became the McKee Report, the resistance was a "somewhat different issue," Greer said. "There was a growing feeling that faculty had certain professional interests and even duties expected from them that they dare not share." He offered several suggestions as to why the McKee Report was returned to the council by the Academic Senate by a 4-1 vote last spring: *It may have been partly a case of "pre - wedding jitters" on the groom's (or faculty's) part - sudden apprehensions about the Pandora's box about to be opened. *Some faculty were concerned about the lack of general student interest or about the possibility that involved students would not be typical students, that they would be politically or socially oriented, or ambitious, or representative of groups with an axe to grind. . *Some felt the administration favored increased student participation (for the idea that if students are in the channels, they won't burn buildings), and faculty did not like this. *There was the sense of intimidation felt by some' members of the Council, though possibly exaggerated, Greer said. ("We're human after all," he said. "Faculty want to be liked by students.") *The idea of sharing power is not really a "popular thing," he said. "It could be 'in' to join hands with colleagues and say, 'things are in good hands.' " *Some felt the document could just be improved. There was the feeling that there should be areas of reserved professional prerogative. There was some justification for that latter feeling during spring term, Greer said, when letters appeared in the State News .in which students said they were "after the faculty's jobs." "I don't believe most students want that," Greer said. But he added that that sort of thing spurred mental reservations among faculty about the idea of increased student participation. WHEN THE Academic Senate considers the Taylor Report next week, it has the same three options it had last spring: To accept, defeat or return the proposal to the Council. But the Senate ha s the further option of offering amendments from the floor. If the report is defeated this tinie, what would happen? "I guess there'd be just nothing," Greer said. "Unless someone comes up with an alternative structure, there would be a hiatus of nothing until at least Mayor until fall." If passed the report will be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval. Although faculty bylaw amendments do not normally require trustee approval, the steering committee has decided that addition of students to academic government alters the delegation of that authority to faculty, as granted by the trustees. Hence, their approval sought. _ BEVERLY TWITCHELL Discussion on' the suggestion centered on the need for such representation and the logistics for providing it. Examples of questions asked: - If we deviate from the department base (by \\(hich COGS repesentatives are now elected), how do we select minority or student representatives? Through what organizations? foreign - Do we not trust the departments to be nondiscriminatory in their elections of COGS representatives? - Do we have concrete proof that these groups of students are discriminated against? Wright will develop a more specific proposal for discussion at next week's COGS meeting. MOST OF the COGS meeting was taken revised in discussion of a constitution. There is some question as to how the new constitution will be ratified. three - According to the old constitution, amendments must be approved by at least fourths of the COGS representatives, and COGS President Peter Flynn interprets the constitution revision as an amendment. The new constitution calls for additional ratification by "a majority affirmative vote of graduate students voting in a referendum." A referendum was also agreed upon when the Board of Trustees formally recognized COGS fall term. COGS has neither finished discussing it the revised constitution nor has settled the ratification question. THE FINAL version of the document rights and on graduate student responsibilities was briefly discussed and will be accepted or rejected at the next COGS meeting. If accepted by both COGS and the Graduate Council, the document will be submitted to the Academic Council. Also at the next COGS meeting, two proposals from the fmance committee will be considered: one relates to dispersal of COGS revenues if at any time the council should be dissolved, and the other suggests that COGS tax revenues be used for multicopying COGS minutes for all graduate students. A slate of officers will also be presented by the nominating committee. Election of new COGS officers will take place the first week in February. Mark Bathurst • • • (Concluded from page 1) Report, but Bathurst says that "the objections were on some of the most important points in the document." * * * BATHURST SAID he was particularly pleased with the Massey Report because it provided for student involvement in the departments. He had served as chairman of ASMSU's now - defunct Student Academic Council, an attempt to organize students at the department and college to meet - on levels academically oriented issues. That provision was carried through all three documents, but he said, "it got lost in the numbers game," which has also ~tayed with all three reports. He said he was not concerned by the numbers game (how many students would serve on various committees and the Academic Council) because "the important thing is that students be regarded as having a valid point of view." Numbers, he said, just reflected "the commitment that students possibly have something to say and should be heard." toward BATHURST MAY cite some student apathy increased student involvement in academic government, but he turns it around by saying that "students are concerned when only 500 faculty show up for the Academic Senate meeting." And he doesn't think students have been as uncompromising as they have been accused of being. "We're still concerned that students be accepted as having a valid point of view," he said, "that we have a right to be involved in determining the direction our education will go. Why should faculty be the sole determiners in what University policy should be on such issues as grades or a moratorium?" in Studen ts were accused the Academic Council of being particularly for uncompromising on minority student representation. proVISIOns is He said his own feeling that students perhaps should be excluded from salary decisions, and he is willing to concede voting privile.ges on tenure questions. But he thinks the student Viewpoint on tenure questions should be through expressed more instructional rating forms. than just He said he has reservations about what he terms ambiguous procedures in the current report for implementing student the participation, particularly minority section. He said he'd like to see the Senate clarify the procedures . in Bathurst also expressed concern about those relating his favorite provisions - to departmental committees - because there is no coordinating body called for in the report to supervise elections. "If departments don't have effective student advisory committees now, it's left up to the faculty," he said. "So where does that leave us?" IF STUDENTS and faculty are seen in some sort of adversary situation," he said, "it's unfortunate." "I think misunderstanding." there's been a lot of in good faith. With "Everyone started out on good hopes, bargaining the Massey Report, the feeling was, 'if there are differences of opinion, let's work them out.' But there have been massive attacks on us. We've felt like no one is listening. " interested "We're not in power grabbing and getting a majority. We simply want to have a means. by which we can be heard, and it's going to take more than one kid." So, after the disappOintments, he said, "as dissatisfied as we are, I still hope the it (the Taylor Senate will approve report.)" If it's passed, "we will have gained, through action and not just 'University there will be a because words, community.' " And if it doesn't pass: "That depends on the Senate. If it goes back to another committee, we'll try to make known our objections to parts we think are ambiguous. We'll try to work on a fourth document." - BEVERLY TWITCHELL The campus in its winter coat. - Photo by Dick Wesley "It was a point of view we held strongly," Bathurst said. And he said faculty were uncompromising about 'exclusive salary, concerns.' " tenure and "their