here to view minutes in portable document format (PDF).
Justice Committee Report (D 1326-1332)
Faculty Council Executive Committee (FCEC) Review of Justice
Committee Report (D 1333-1334)
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
Following are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of
May 7, 2001.
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING OF
May 7, 2001
The eighth regular meeting of the Faculty Council for
the academic year 2000-2001 was held in Room 212 of the Main Building
on Monday, May 7, 2001, at 2:30 P.M.
Present: Anthony P. Ambler, Katherine M. Arens, Neal E.
Armstrong, Matthew J. Bailey, Joyce L. Banks, Gerard H. BŽhague, Douglas
G. Biow, David G. Bogard, Dean A. Bredeson, Richard A. Cherwitz, Michael
B. Clement, Dana L. Cloud, Donald G. Davis, Patrick J. Davis, Desley
A. Deacon, John D. Dollard, Minette E. Drumwright, John R. Durbin,
Sheldon Ekland-Olson, Larry R. Faulkner, Dorie J. Gilbert, Lita A.
L. Hackert, Von Matthew (Matt) Hammond, Barbara J. Harlow, James L.
Hill, Martha F. Hilley, Sharon D. Horner, Judith A. Jellison, Ward
Karrol A. Kitt, Robert C. Koons, Steven W. Leslie, William S. Livingston,
Laura E. Luthy, Katheryn Coveley Maguire, Glenn Y. Masada, Francis
L. Miksa, Gregory R. Murphy, Melvin E. L. Oakes, Patricia C. Ohlendorf,
Alba A. Ortiz, Thomas G. Palaima, Bruce P. Palka, William C. Powers,
Linda E. Reichl, Elizabeth Richmond-Garza, Victoria Rodriguez, Juan
Sanchez, Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, Mark R. V. Southern, Michael P. Starbird,
Salomon A. Stavchansky, Paul Randall (Randy) Thompson, Janice S. Todd,
James W. Vick, John W. Walthall, James R. Yates, Katy B. Zarolia.
Absent: Christopher O. Adejumo, Mark I. Alpert (excused),
Efraim P. Armendariz, Victor L. Arnold (excused), Joel W. Barlow, Phillip
J. Barrish, Brigitte L. Bauer (excused), Harold W. Billings, Lynn E.
Blais, Daniel A. Bonevac, Cindy L. Carlson, Michael J. Churgin (excused),
Richard L. Cleary (excused), Patricia L. Clubb, Edwin Dorn, Shelley F.
Fishkin, G. Charles Franklin, Robert Freeman, Nell H. Gottlieb (excused),
Thomas M. Hatfield, Arlen W. Johnson (excused), Sharon H. Justice, Manuel
J. Justiz (excused), Elizabeth L. Keating (excused), Kerry A. Kinney,
Stefan M. Kostka, Richard W. Lariviere, David A. Laude, David R. Maidment,
Margaret N. Maxey, Robert G. May, Theodore E. Pfeifer, Elmira Popova,
Mary Ann R. Rankin, Johnnie D. Ray, Andrew M. Riggsby, Daron K. Roberts,
David J. Saltman, Dolores Sands, Robert N. Schmidt (excused), Roberta
I. Shaffer, Joel F. Sherzer (excused), Lawrence W. Speck, Laura T. Starks,
Ben G. Streetman, Teresa A. Sullivan, Daniel A. Updegrove, N. Bruce Walker,
Ellen A. Wartella, Barbara W. White (excused).
||REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
There were no questions about the written report (D
||APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The minutes of the Faculty Council meeting of
April 16, 2001 (D
1255-1258), were approved by voice vote.
||COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
||Comments by the President.
The president began with general comments
relating to budget prospects for the coming year, including
uncertainty about what action the legislature would
take, rising energy costs, and health insurance increases.
The president then expressed his appreciation to the
chair, chair elect, and secretary for their contributions
over the year. He also said that it was wonderful
to see the decency and commitment represented by the speeches given by the
two candidates for 2001-2002 chair elect. Finally, he reminded members that,
in spite of the problems faced by the University, it remained "one of the greatest
academic locations on the face of the earth."
||Questions to the President.
Janice Todd (kinesiology and health education), had submitted a question through
the secretary about the cost of parking permits for Lot F21, at Belmont Hall,
for 2001-2002. The annual cost had been announced as $600, compared with $345
for other F lots. The president called on Bob Harkins (director of parking
and transportation services) and Joe Powell (associate vice president for employee
and campus services) to address the question. Harkins said that Lot 21 was
unique on the campus in the sense that individual parking places were assigned,
and that was the reason for the original difference. However, he had not been
aware that faculty members used Lot 21 until talking with Todd earlier that
day. Based on that information the rate for Lot 21 had been changed to $345
|REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
Chair Patrick Davis (pharmacy) informed members
of various aspects of the free speech issues arising from
the Justice for All exhibit earlier in the semester. (See
the minutes of the meetings of February 19, March 19, and
April 16, D
1192-1196, 1227-1232, 1255-1258).
Copies of a draft of a report from the committee chaired
by Dean of Students Sharon Justice, as well as a review of
the draft by the Faculty Council Executive Committee, were
provided to those present at the meeting and are attached
to these minutes. Davis said the Committee of Counsel on
Academic Freedom and Responsibility had also been asked to
comment on the draft.
The chair thanked the members of the Council,
the president, and the provost for their support during the
year. He offered special thanks to the members of the executive
committee, to Past Chair Martha Hilley (music), and to Chris
Marcin and Debbie Roberts of the Office of the General Faculty.
|REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT.
Chair elect Bruce Palka (mathematics) announced the results of the election
of officers for the 2001-2002 Council. He also spoke for the members in expressing
appreciation to Chair Davis for the leadership he had provided to the Council
over the year, and presented Davis with an engraved gavel.
|SPECIAL ORDERS None.
|UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.
|REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES
AND SCHOOLS, AND COMMITTEES None.
Before considering Items A-D below, from the printed agenda, the Council agreed
to consider as an emergency item the legislation on D
1241-1242, Two-Tries Policy in the College of Engineering Chapter of The
Undergraduate Catalog, 2000-2002, and the protest to that legislation from Katy
Zarolia (cabinet of college councils), D
After extended discussion involving Neal Armstrong (civil engineering),
Al Meyer (associate dean for student affairs, engineering), Katy
Zarolia, John Walthall
(cabinet of college councils), Karrol Kitt (human ecology), Linda Reichl (physics),
Matt Hammond (student government), Cynthia Shelmerdine (classics), Steve Monti
(provost's office), Katheryn Maguire (graduate student assembly), Lita Guerra
(music), the chair, and the secretary, the Council voted to approve the legislation
after deleting the second (and last) sentence: "No student may enroll in
any such course more than twice." Thus the approved policy consisted of
the following sentence: "An undergraduate in the College of Engineering
may not enroll in any course required in his or her engineering degree plan more
than once without written consent of an adviser in his or her department."
|| Cancellation of Summer Meetings of the
The secretary announced that, following the usual practice, the chair had cancelled
the Council's summer meetings, with the understanding that special meetings
would be called if warranted (D
|| Approval of Meeting Dates for 2001-2002.
The Council approved a motion by the secretary setting the meeting dates of
the Council and the General Faculty for 2001-2002 (D
1244). The secretary pointed out that the annual meeting of the General
Faculty was being set to follow the first regular meeting of the Faculty Council,
on the same day, September 17. This was in part because of discussions by the
Council's Executive Committee, earlier in the year, about possible ways to
increase attendance at the annual meeting of the General Faculty; and in part
because of the necessity for the General Faculty to consider legislation to
increase student involvement in faculty hiring, which had received more than
the required number of 25 protests from the members of the General Faculty
||Nominations for the Intercollegiate Athletics
Councils and the University Co-op Board.
The Council approved the following lists of nominees, which were proposed by
a nominating committee consisting of Patrick Davis (chair), Bruce Palka, Martha
Hilley, Neal Armstrong, and Michael Starbird (mathematics) (D
1245-1246). The president is to make one selection from each list of nominees.
Men's intercollegiate athletics council: Robert Duke (music), Edward Coyle
(kinesiology and health education), David Fowler (civil engineering), LaRita
Spence (nursing), and Jerry Junkin (music).
||Women's intercollegiate athletics council:
John Murphy (advertising), Susan Hardy (architecture),
Janice Beyer (management), Vijaya Ramachandran (computer
sciences), and Gayle Acton (nursing). University Co-op
board of directors: Vijay Mahajan (marketing administration),
Alba Ortiz (special education), and Thomas Palaima (classics).
||Intercollegiate Athletics Councils.
The annual reports were given by Donald Phelps (educational administration),
chair of the intercollegiate athletics council for men, and Shelley Payne
(molecular genetics and microbiology), chair of the intercollegiate athletics
council for women.
Chair Phelps discussed highlights of the written report (D1268-1269)
and introduced Brian Davis, assistant athletics director for academic programs,
who also commented on the report and invited members to contact him if there
were questions or suggestions. Lucia Gilbert (provost's office) asked about
the percentage of athletes who exhaust their eligibility. Davis said he was
not sure of the exact figures, but thought that about 75-80% of those who
were recruited, given aid, and matriculated, stayed for all four years of
Chair Payne commented on the written report for women (D
1270), discussed the kinds of issues considered by the women's council,
and talked about changes being made in the department. In particular, Chris
Plonsky was serving as interim associate athletics director for men's and
women's athletics because of the resignation of Jody Conradt, who had chosen
to serve full time as basketball coach. Payne said the president would appoint
a committee to consider the future administrative structure for women's athletics,
and she invited comments from the faculty on possible changes.
|ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS None.
|QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR None.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 P.M.
Distributed through the Faculty Council web site
on May 24, 2001. Copies are available on request from the Office
of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.
M E M O R A N D U M
||James W. Vick
||Sharon H. Justice
||Proposed Revisions to Rules for Use of University
||April 11, 2001
I write to report the recommendations
of a committee you asked me to convene to review rules regarding
use of university facilities as they are outlined in Appendix
C, Chapter 10 of the General Information Catalog. The committee
members were Joe Powell, Associate Vice President for Employee
and Campus Services; Kevin Rome, Assistant Dean of Students for
Campus and Community Involvement; and Cheryl Wood, Senior Student
Affairs Administrator in the Office of the Dean of Students.
The work of the committee included consideration of the questions
raised by President Faulkner in his March 19, 2001, memorandum
to the Faculty Council.
In addition to our recommended changes to the rules, we also
are of the opinion that while we work with these rules on a daily
basis, our community must be better
informed. We will propose an educational campaign, soliciting advice from the
campus community in this endeavor. Our ideas include better use of the web and
distribution of informational handouts regarding pertinent rules at rallies that
will draw large crowds. We suggest, as well, that consideration should be given
to including relevant portions of these rulesÑsuch as those dealing with application
of the rules to faculty, staff, and students and rules regarding amplified sound--in
the Handbook of Operating Procedures or among our Policy Memoranda. We have not
proposed rules for the new Speedway Mall pending advice on plans for that area
from the Campus Master Planning Committee.
||Questions posed by President Faulkner:
1. Does the University have the right to restrict displays
on the basis of content when it is deemed offensive in
particular ways by members of our community? If so, what
would be the basis for decision?
We do not recommend that the University restrict displays
on the basis of content. While we may vehemently disagree
with the position taken by a given group, we don't know
of anyone who would want to or who should make a content-based
decision regarding which exhibits can or cannot be displayed
on campus. It is almost inevitable that a content-based
decision would result in legal action. We think a better
approach would be not to issue a permit if we have a reasonable
belief that an exhibit will result in significant disruption
of campus activities and we are advised that the law will
support us in exercising that judgment when it is necessary
to do so.
2. Does the university have the right to limit displays
in scale? If so, what would be allowed, and how would the limitations
The University has the right to limit displays in scale.
This issue is addressed in our recommendation for changes in
our rules, which state that exhibits must be appropriate for
the space in which they will be displayed, as determined by
the dean. An arbitrary definition of display size(s) would
be problematic. For example, the display of the state flag
at the entrance to the Main Building might be prohibited by
fixed limitations for exhibits on campus.
3. Is it appropriate to continue to use the Gregory Gym
Plaza as a site by displays sponsored by student organizations?
We believe it is appropriate to use Gregory Gym Plaza
as a site for displays. We do not consider that space a "rally
area" at this time and recommend that it continue to
be used primarily for exhibits.
4: What attributes constitute co-sponsorship of an outside
organization, which is not permitted under the Regents' Rules?
We believe we should follow existing rules. No changes
are needed. It is routine practice of the Office of the Dean
of Students to ask groups to remove information about external
organizations when it appears on exhibits. If a group fails
to comply with this request, the permit is revoked and the
exhibit must be removed.
5. Is our policy on amplified sound well enough understood? Should we consider
The purpose of restricting amplified sound is to avoid
interference with classroom instruction. Our policy on amplified
sound is not well publicized nor well understood by members
of the university community. In our recommendations, we have
clearly spelled out the areas and times when amplified sound
6. Are policies on enforcement of campus rules that are
applicable to students also applicable to faculty and staff?
We believe the enforcement of the rules for use of campus
facilities must be applicable to faculty and staff. We have
included this suggestion in our recommendations.
||Proposed changes to Chapter 10 Use
of University Facilities, Appendix C, General Information
Our review of rules for use of campus facilities suggests language changes should
be made to clarify the rules regarding definitions, booths, public demonstrations,
use of designated areas, amplified sound, and appeals. The existing text of the
sections of the rules we propose to modify is set out below, with recommended
changes indicated in underlined italics.
A. We recommend additions to the definitions in Section 10-102
of Chapter 10 to provide uniformity in the description of "malls" as
that term is used in our rules. It is our belief that many members
of the campus community are confused by or use inapposite terms
to refer to these spaces.
Sec. 10-102. Definitions
In this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning,
||"authorized representative" means a person designated
to represent an organization as required in subsection 6-304(a);
||"dean" means the dean of students or the dean's delegate
||"organization" means a faculty, staff, or student group
holding a valid registration;
||"president" means the president of the University of Texas
||"student" means a person currently enrolled in residence
at the university, or who is accepted for admission or readmission to
the university, or who has been enrolled at the university in a prior
semester or summer session and is eligible to continue enrollment in
the semester or summer session that immediately follows, or who is attending
an educational program sponsored by the university while that person
is on campus;
||"university" means the University of Texas at Austin;
||"university facility" means a classroom, auditorium,
residence hall, other building, property, or outdoor area owned or
controlled by the university;
||"vice president" means the vice president for student
||"weekday" means Monday through Friday except for official
university holidays; "day" means calendar day.
||Committee's proposed additions:
B. We recommend modifications to Section 10-305 of Chapter
10 Booths, to clarify methods of communication with applicants and
to implement changes in the periods of time for which booth permits may
be granted. The latter changes are based on the types of booths involved
(tables, temporary structures, or special exhibits) and to indicate that
the dean has full discretion to determine whether a proposed booth is appropriate
for the space requested.
|| "South Mall" is the grassy area south of
Inner Campus drive and north of Littlefield Fountain;
|| "Main Mall" is the concrete plaza and grassy
flag pole area just immediately south of the Main Building,
extending to the north side of Inner Campus drive;
|| "Speedway Mall" is the area bordered on the
south by Inner Campus Drive and on the north by the service
entrance to Chilling Station #2;
|| "East Mall" begins at the Speedway Mall and
extends east to the west side of the East Mall Fountain;
|| "Booths" are defined in section 10-305 (a);
|| "Rally Areas" are defined as areas The
University has designated for assembly without prior approval
and where permission may be granted for use of amplified sound
at specified times. Rally areas are identified in Section 10-307(a).
Sec. 10-305. Booths
Committee's proposed modifications:
||In this chapter, unless the context requires a different
meaning, "booth" means a table furnished by the university or an approved
table furnished by the student or organization or a temporary structure
installed for distributing petitions, handbills, or literature, or for
displaying signs, or for other forms of expression, or for raising funds
or soliciting tangible items.
||A student or organization may install a booth after meeting
the requirements of subsections (c), (d), and (e).
||the applicant's name;
||the proposed use of the booth;
||the proposed location of the booth;
||the length of time that the booth will be installed;
||the signature of the applicant or its authorized representative.
Modify subsection c. to read:
||Before installing a booth, a student or organization must
apply to the dean for permission to install a booth on a form prescribed
by the dean. The dean will communicate only with the applicant
or, if the applicant is an organization, with the organization's authorized
representative(s). An application under this section shall contain:
||the applicant's name;
||the proposed use of the booth;
||the proposed location of the booth;
||the length of time that the booth will be installed;
||the signature of the applicant or its authorized
Existing text of section 10-305 (continued)
||The dean shall approve an application
properly made under subsection (c) unless there are reasonable
grounds to believe that:
||the applicant is under a disciplinary
penalty prohibiting installing a booth;
||the proposed location
||is an area designated
by the dean as inappropriate for a booth;
|| unreasonably obstructs
pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
||the booth does not meet fire,
health, or safety standards;
||the booth will be used for nonpermissible
fund-raising or other solicitation;
||the booth will be used for purposes
that would involve a nonregistered group or individual
or group of individuals;
||the booth will be used for the
distribution of material that is obscene, vulgar,
||the booth will be staffed by a
person who is not a University of Texas at Austin
student, faculty member, or staff member; or
||the booth would disrupt or disturb
the regular academic and institutional program,
or other approved activities, or would result
in damage to or defacement of property.
||The booth shall identify the student or
||Committee's proposed change:
|The booth permit shall be valid for
not more than one long semester or whole summer session,
after which a new application shall be required. The
area around the booth shall be cleaned on a daily basis.
With prior approval, booths will be permitted overnight
in specified locations.
||The booth permit shall be valid
for different periods of times depending upon the
type of booth:
||A table permit shall be
valid for not more than one long semester
or whole summer session, after which a new
application will be required;
||A temporary structure permit
shall be valid for not more than 14 calendar
days, after which a new application will
||Special exhibits must be
removed by the expiration date shown on the
||The size of the exhibit
must be appropriate to the space requested,
at the discretion of the Dean.
Existing text (continued)
||No student or organization may operate
a booth for the purpose of distributing, soliciting,
or selling by accosting individuals or by hawking or
||Organizations assume full responsibility
for their booths or temporary structures, including all
injuries or hazards that may arise from their presence
on the campus. The university is not liable for damage
that may occur to booths or temporary structures.
||If the dean refuses an application under
subsection (d), upon request the applicant shall be given
a written statement of the grounds for refusal within
C. We recommend changes to Section
10-306 Public Demonstrations, to give additional time
for consideration of an application for use of campus facilities
(the time under current rules is only one weekday, which has
proven unrealistic) and to indicate that
rules for use of campus facilities apply equally
to faculty, staff, and students. Further, we spell out the processes to
be used when violations occur, depending upon the constituency involved.
Sec. 10-306. Public Demonstrations
||A student or organization may publicly assemble or
demonstrate in a peaceful manner after obtaining the dean's permission.
||An application to assemble publicly or demonstrate
shall be made on a form prescribed by the dean and shall contain
||the applicant's name;
||the proposed location, date, and time for
the assembly or demonstration;
||the anticipated number of participants;
||the purpose of the assembly or demonstration;
||the signature of the applicant or, if an organization,
its authorized representative.
||The dean shall approve an application properly made
under subsection (b) unless there are reasonable grounds to believe
||the applicant is under a disciplinary penalty
prohibiting publicly assembling or demonstrating;
||the proposed location is unavailable or inappropriate
at the time requested;
||the proposed date and time are unreasonable;
||the assembly or demonstration would unreasonably
obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
||the assembly or demonstration would prevent,
obstruct, or unreasonably interfere with the regular academic
and institutional activities, or other approved activities,
of the university;
||the assembly or demonstration would constitute
an immediate and actual danger to university students, faculty,
or staff, or to the peace or security of the university that
available law enforcement officials could not control with
reasonable effort; or
||the assembly or demonstration would constitute
an unauthorized joint sponsorship.
Committee's proposed changes:
| If an application under the section is refused,
upon request the dean shall give the applicant a written statement
of the grounds for refusal within one weekday.
||If an application is refused, upon request the
dean shall give the applicant a written statement of the grounds
for refusal within five weekdays.
||Students, faculty and staff may be disciplined
by the university for violating University policies, rules and
regulations set out in this Chapter:
||student violations will be referred
to the Office of The Dean of Students;
||staff violations will be referred to
Human Resource Services;
||faculty violations will be referred
to the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost.
D. We recommend changes to Section 10-307 Use
of Designated Areas, to emphasize the fact that freedom of speech is a
campus-wide right, but that there are areas of the campus that are designated
as rally areas. We define rally areas, which have additional rules and
may be reserved for use at specified times on weekdays. We suggest language
that will clarify the rules regarding amplified sound.
Sec. 10-307. Use of Designated Areas
||The freedoms of speech and assembly are
basic and essential to intellectual development. However,
these activities are subject to the well-established
right of colleges and universities
||to regulate time, place, and manner so that the activities
do not intrude upon or interfere with the academic programs and administrative
processes of the university. The university may designate one or
more appropriate areas on the campus where students may assemble
and engage in speech activities without prior administrative approval.
In other areas on the campus, all speech and assembly activities
must be conducted in accordance with institutional rules.
||Committee's proposed changes:
Modify subsection a. to read:
Existing text (continued):
||The freedoms of speech and assembly
are basic and essential to intellectual development. However, these
activities are subject to the well-established right of colleges
and universities to regulate time, place, and manner so that the
activities do not intrude upon or interfere with the academic programs
and administrative processes of the university. The university
may designate one or more appropriate areas on the campus where
students may assemble and engage in speech activities without prior
administrative approval. If one of these areas, designated
as "rally areas,Ó is reserved for use at a specific time,
that use takes priority until the reservation period has expired. In
other areas on the campus, all speech and assembly activities must
be conducted in accordance with institutional rules.
The designated rally areas are:
||The West Mall rally
area: the west steps of the Main
||The Texas Union
East patio flagstone portion East
of the Texas Union;
||The East Mall rally
area: the grassy area adjacent to
the Shuttle Bus circle south of the
East Mall Fountain.
Committee's proposed changes:
||A student or organization may use an
area designated under subsection (a)
||for public discussion without prior permission under section
||for peaceful public assembly or demonstration without prior
permission under section 10-306.
||Public assembly, discussion, or demonstration
exercised in accordance with subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) shall
not disturb or interfere with a program, event, or activity approved
by the dean prior to the public assembly, discussion, or demonstration,
and shall not unreasonably disturb or interfere with normal operations
and activities of the university. Use of the designated area shall
not include activities which would constitute impermissible solicitation
or involve a non-registered group or individual or group of individuals.
Add a new subsection d.:
||Amplified sound is defined as
any electronic device using an input of power so as to obtain
a sound output of greater magnitude. Amplified sound may be
used at the following times and locations:
||at the West Mall rally area and the
Texas Union East patio rally area from Monday through
Friday between 11:30-1:30 p.m. with prior approval
of the dean;
||at the East Mall rally at any time
with prior approval of the dean;
||Amplified sound may be used at all
campus locations after 5:00 p.m. on weeknights and
all day on weekends with prior approval of the dean.
E. We propose a change to Section 10-601 Procedures
for Appeal, to extend the time available to the vice president in reviewing
and responding to an appeal of the denial of use of campus facilities by
Sec. 10-601. Procedures for Appeal
Existing text (with proposed modification in italics):
||A student or organization aggrieved by a decision
under this chapter is entitled to appeal to the vice president by
giving written notice to the dean on or before the fifth weekday
after the day the decision is announced. The notice is informal,
but shall contain the student's or organization's name and mailing
address, a concise description of the decision complained of, the
student's or organization's reasons for disagreeing with the decision,
and the date the decision was announced.
||When timely notice of appeal is received, the dean
shall prepare and send to the vice president a copy of the written
statement of the reason given for the dean's decision. The vice president
shall provide the student or organization with an opportunity for
a hearing and the person or the organization shall be notified at
least one weekday three weekdays before the date of the hearing.
F. We propose that the vice president shall
be the final level of appeal for the denial of use of campus facilities
by a registered student organization. We believe the recommended change
provides for adequate review and consideration of these appeals.
Sec. 10-602. Further Review by Petition
||The dean, a student, or an organization may petition in
writing through the vice president to the president to review the decision
being appealed. The president may establish an ad hoc committee to review
the appeal and make recommendations regarding it. The president reviews
appeals solely at his or her discretion.
Committee's proposed change:
Strike Section 10-602 and modify Section10-601(b) above
||When timely notice of appeal is received, the
dean shall prepare and send to the vice president a copy of
the written statement of the reason given for the dean's decision.
The vice president shall provide the student or organization
with an opportunity for a hearing and the person or the organization
shall be notified at least
|one weekday three weekdays before
the date of the hearing. The decision of the vice president
shall be final.
The committee stands ready to discuss this
report and any of our recommendations upon request. We look forward to
hearing from you.
Faculty Council Executive Committee
Review of Justice Committee Report
4/21/01 (PJ Davis)
This document was generated from the FCEC discussion on 4/20 and was then
discussed at the FCEC+ meeting with the Provost Ekland-Olson and Vice President
Jim Vick on 4/23. In our discussion, we recognized that the Justice Committee
had a narrowly defined charge and a relatively short timeline in specifically
addressing the six questions posed by the President, and suggesting any changes
in the wording of current policies to meet the deadline for the next edition
of the GIB (i.e., by the end of the Spring semester). The Faculty Executive
Committee (FCEC) and the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
were charged to review the Justice Report and provide feedback. The response
below (and the discussion in the FCEC+ cited above) represents the FCEC's
In order to clarify the responsibilities of various committees
looking into Ôfree speech' issues (i.e., the Justice Committee, the
Dorn Committee, and the Academic Freedom Committee) it was noted
that the recently empanelled Dorn Committee has a specific charge
to address the inquiry (resolution) passed by the Faculty Council
(i.e., "Éthat the administration investigate the allegation
that Professor Mia Carter was singled out by the campus police during
the demonstrations concerning the display on the Gregory Gym mall.Ó).
In addition, the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
(currently reviewing the Justice Committee Report) will be given
a charge to examine the broader range of free speech issues that
have arisen on our campus, particularly those that are faculty-related.
It is recognized that this latter charge will be a longer-term effort.
The comments shown below in [bracket italics] are notes derived from the FCEC+
meeting and from FCEC-member comments following that meeting.
Comments on Intro:
The FCEC concurs that processes are needed to better inform the
community as to the current (and to be modified) rules regarding
use of University facilities (GIB Chapter 10). In addition to
the processes suggested (web-based distribution, informational
handouts, etc.) we would also suggest that the Dean of Students
Office consider developing a set of Ôpolicy sheets' that succinctly
summarize the pertinent rules for each type of facility usage
or event. Such a document could be downloadable from the web,
and would be signed by the organizational representative (signifying
understanding and acceptance of the rules) and turned in as part
of the application for using the facility. [Discussion: Jim
Vick thought this was a very good idea]
Comments on Responses to President Faulkner's Questions:
||We concur that the University should not (in
general) get into the business of restricting displays based
on content. The question posed, however, was whether the
University has the right to restrict displays based on content.
The second part of the response would suggest that the answer
is Ôyes' (denying a permit based on content is tantamount
to restricting content). We concur that such a denial would
be appropriate if there was reason to believe that there
would be Ôsignificant disruption of campus activities'. The
question is, how is such a determination to be made (so that
it does not appear to be arbitrary)? [Discussion: Long
discussion on Ôwhat if' scenarios, but Jim Vick agreed this
was one of the more difficult issues to deal with and still
needs discussion. This is one area where exploration by the
Committee on Academic Freedom & Responsibility would be helpful;
i.e., how does the University decide unacceptable content
(obscene, etc), and how does the University predict Ôsignificant
disruption' without basing it on content?]
||It is not clear why Gregory Gym Plaza would
be appropriate for an exhibit area, but not as a rally area.
We're not suggesting that it should be, rather we're asking
what goes into making the recommendation that a particular
area be designated a Ôrally area'. [Discussion: This is
an example of where the surrounding academic environment
would dictate what should vs should not be a rally area based
on the use of amplified sound. For example, if the Business
School (which faces this area to the west) did not have objections
to the use of amplified sound during specific time periods
(e.g., 11;30-1:30), this then could be a rally area during
that period of time. It's a community decision. That said,
concern was voiced after the FCEC+ meeting as to whether
the Gregory Gym Plaza area should be designated either a
display or a rally area, based on the public traffic (i.e.,
||including visitors for outside the University) across
that area. The concern was that it would be difficult to protect visitors
(especially kids) from potentially offensive material in such a high
traffic area One possible suggestion is to look at the Indiana model,
where there are designated Ôanything goes' areas with other areas designated
with more restrictions].
||Assuming that Ôexisting rules' on co-sponsorship refers
to Subchapter 10-200, Sec 10-201(c), this really is not clear since it
simply refers to Regents' Rules. Is there a succinct way of stating what
co-sponsorship would or would not be allowed? [Discussion: A very
long discussion ensued with the basic conclusion that this is an area
that needs substantial work and definition. Input from the Committee
on Academic Freedom and Responsibility on this issue would be helpful.
It is important that this be clearly defined and communicated so that
decisions for approval versus non-approval do not appear to be arbitrary,
but in addition, to avoid allowing ambiguity to serve as a mechanism
to circumvent the rules (i.e., Ôloopholes')].
|| Clarification of what constitutes amplified sound, when
it is allowed, and (what appears to be) the requirement for prior approval
in all cases is helpful. The definition of amplified sound needs work,
however (how can amplified sound be a Ôdevice'?). [Discussion: A clearer
definition will be proposed].
||We concur that the rules should apply to students, faculty,
Comments on the Subsection Revisions to Chapter
||Clarification of specific campus areas (for
exhibits, rallies, etc) is very helpful.
||Modifications for the section on Public Demonstrations:
While it is understood why a longer period of time for application
approval is necessary, there is concern that a 5-day turnaround
could stifle timely, public response to a pressing issue. [Discussion:
Jim Vick agreed that the proposed timeline has the potential
of creating the problem specified, and wasn't sure whether
the one day turnaround was actually causing problems. He
will therefore be taking this back to the Committee].
||The final level of appeal is specified as
the Vice President. Is there precedent for this (implying
that a decision cannot be appealed to the President)? [Discussion:
From a practical standpoint, anyone can write a letter to
the President appealing any decision. However, from an operational
standpoint, there are ample examples of policies where Vice
Presidents or Deans havethe final word. An additional proposal
would be that potential Ôproblem' application for use of
campus facilities or a rally area be referred to an appropriate
Committee (e.g., the Academic Freedom Committee if appropriate
for the issue) for rapid response.].