FEATURES: On '80s night at the Granada Theater, students dance to the music of their childhood davs. Page 6.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VOL.103,NO.88
THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
KANSAS STATE
HISTORICAL SOCIETY
TOPEKA KS 66612
ADVERTISING: 864-4358
THURSDAY. JANUARY 27,1994
(USPS 650-640)
NEWS:864-4810
Struggling to reach a consensus
University Council to vote today on latest relationships policy
By Stephen Martino
Kansan staff writer
A consensual relations policy at the University of Kansas was born amid the controversy of the dismissal hearings of Enil Tonkovich, former professor of law. The hearings were the first
hint that the University would hint that the University would to address the question of faculty dating their students.
Today, the latest version of that policy will be voted on by University Council. If it passes, the policy will place a limited ban on consensual relations. The adminstr...
ions. The administration has agreed to this draft before Council.
But if the policy fails to pass, it will leave intact an administration decree that completely bans faculty and student relationships.
The administration based this on two point
For the past six months, the administration, governance and the University community have struggled with the process of consensual relations, a process that some of its active members say was heavy-handed and unsatisfying.
Yet almost everyone agrees, it should not have been this difficult. No less than three governance groups have grappled with this question.
Ed Meyen, executive vice chancellor,
announced the administration's ban on consensual relations July 30, 1993. The policy took effect Aug. 20, 1993. The ban was absolute, but how long it would remain in effect was unclear.
Tomorrow in The University Daily Kansan:
THE VOTE: University Council votes on the change to the consensual relations policy.
STUDENTS: How a policy on consensual relations will affect students.
OFFICIAL COMPLAINT: A member of the Special Task Force on Consensual Relations files a complaint to have the KU judicial board declare "null and void" the policy passed Dec. 9 by Council.
SEPARATE ISSUES: is consensual relations really the problem at the University?
The Beginning Of The Conflict
The nine-page policy and announcement did make clear the administration's insistence that consensual relationships between faculty and students be completely prohibited.
The administration based this on two points. First, faculty involved in relationships with students would be violating a section of the Faculty Code of Conduct that prohibits faculty from behavior that violates "commonly accepted standards of professional ethics."
Second, University Senate Rules and Regulations prohibit "grading student work by criteria other than academic performance."
"The University is a large community where people work closely," Meyen said. "However, when a teacher is in a position to make
evaluations of a student's work, romantic relationships can have a serious negative impact on the student and disrupt the environment for other students. The consensual relationship policy is designed to prevent those situations."
However, the administration was unsure how the faculty and students would react to having a policy imposed by decree and not something the University's governance structure produced.
The administration was committed to the University having an effective policy that it and the faculty could live with, said Robert Friauf, professor of physics and astronomy and head of Council. He said that the administration always had intended for the faculty and student governance to come up with a policy of its own.
T. P.Srinivasan, professor of mathematics and head of SenEx. agreed.
"There is no question that was the intention of the administration," he said. "If we have a policy that affects the academic community, we want to make sure it has the backing of the community as a general rule."
That backing — if it is there — will come in today's vote.
BAN: The policy that University Council will vote on today is not the one that was recommended by the consensual relationships task force. Page 3
do you believe that the option that was voted on by Council was representative of the work product and positions of the task force?
Kim Wiloox,
km of the task force
and associate
language and speech,
lauteure and hearing.
"There were things in the policy that I thought didn't represent the findings of the task force, but Option C didn't seem that it was too much different."
Elizabeth
Banks associate professor of classics
Nobleza
Ausunclon-Lande
professor of
communication
studies
"Yes."
John Altevogt,
graduate University
Senate Executive
Committee member
"It was pretty much a combination of the other options."
"It reflected the view after the line was struck in Council. After it left ExEn, it was internally inconsistent."
Jill Bechtel,
undergraduate
Bezaeiloel Benjamin,
professor of architectural engineering
Benjamin had not seen the policy.
"No, everyone agreed that we shouldn't try to enforce any kind of ban. There should be no penalties for this behavior."
"Yes, they were very representative."
Robert Frinauf.
Robert Friauf,
professor of physics
and astronomy and
University
Council
Jeff Bottenberg, undergraduate senator
marrie,
undergraduate
student and director
of community
outreach
"It is
representative.
"We worked with the chairperson, so I believe it was."
Cindy Nodges.
Julio Harris
Hodges never knew of an Option C.
Evolution of the policy
Sandy Wick,
assistant director of
honors program
"U = "
July 30.1993
Carol Jean Brune,
budget analyst,
Robert Harrington,
associate
professor of education
psychology and research,
and Dennis Pawitz,
professor of
psychology, did not
Chander
Jayaraman,
undergraduate SenEx
member,
Ed Meyen, executive vice chancellor, announces policy written by administration that completely bans consensual relations at the University.
"It was pretty close."
Joe Zeller, professor of ceramics
Aug. 20,1993 Administration ban goes into effect.
Micah Laaker / KANSAN
Meyen writes to Srinivasan and Friauf saving the
Jan. 12,1994
Srinivasan and Fri
saying the administration accepts the policy-passed at Dec. 9 Council meeting. But he seeks to expand the nature of faculty to remove themselves from evaluative power positions over students a violation of the Faculty Code of
Sep.16, 1993
University Council calls for formation of Special Task Force on Consensual Relations, chaired by Kim Wilcox, associate professor of speech, language and hearing.
Kim Wilcox
Nov.24.1993
Task force reveals report to T.P. Srinivasan, head of University Senate Executive Committee, in letter from Wilcox, containing Options A and B. Task force makes clear it opposes ban on consensual relations.
Conduct. A violation could result in disciplinary action, including termination.
Robert Friauf
Jan. 19, 1994
T. P. Srinivasan
Council considers Option C and votes affirmatively for the policy, as amended.
Dec.1,1993
SenEx meets, Options A and B are revealed to SenEx Also, an Option C, written by Srinivasan and Robert Fruifu, head of Council, is the focus of his discussion. SenEx votes unanimously to advance Option C to Council.
Dec. 9, 1993
SenEx makes editorial changes to administration recommendation and forwards the policy to Council for consideration at Jan. 27 meeting. Revision still contains the inclusion of violation to code of conduct.
Council to vote on amended version of policy from SenEx, based on administration recommendations.
Jan. 27,1994
Task force members say effort ignored by leaders
Micah Laaker / KANSAN
By Stephen Martino Kansan staff writer
When Sandra Wick was asked to serve on the Special Task Force on the Consensual Relations policy, she said she thought that her work would be appreciated and discussed. Now that the task force has finished, she is not sure that has been the case.
"I feel like I've been conned," she said. "We all spent a lot of hours and time to work for this. If we had known what the outcome was going to be, we could have stopped, and SenEx could have written its own policy to begin with."
Wick, assistant director of the honors program, is referring to a series of conflicts, misunderstandings and suspect procedural irregularities on the part of University governance officials, who also seemed to have ignored relevant parts of the task force's recommendations.
The task force was formed Sept. 16 by University Council. It was told to report back to both the University Senate Executive Committee and Council within six to eight weeks.
The task force reported its findings to T.P. Srinivasan, head of SeX on, Enx Nov. 24 in a letter from Kim Wilcox, associate professor of speech, language and hearing and head of the task force. In addition to specific answers to eight charges presented by Council, the task force included two posone which seems to forbid consensual relations but leaves just how forbidden they are vague, was written by Srinivasan and Friau. This third option was the subject of discussion, and its amended form was forwarded from SenEx to Council.
to be interviewed. Of those nine said it had been their understanding that the options they had presented were to be voted on. Two said that they were recommendations.
Not having their options voted on has angered some members of the task force and confused others. Eleven of 16 task force members contacted by the Kansan agreed
Srinivasan said that SenEx had never intended for the options to be presented as policy, ar. he said they had not been.
However, minutes from the Dec. 1, 1993,
SenEx meeting would seem to indicate othsible options for policy, which SenEx and Council could consider. Option A was written by Elizabeth Banks, associate professor of classics, and Option B was written by Robert Friauf, professor of physics and astronomy and head of Council. Both options did not expressly forbid consensual relations.
Conflicts Over The Ban
"We put a fair amount of work in
it,so Iwas
it,so I was troubled by what occurred."
Those two options were never voted on by SenEx or Council. Instead, a third option,
Kim Wilcox
Head of the relationships task force
"We put a fair amount of work in it, so I was somewhat troubled by what occurred," he said. The lack of a vote on
the task force's work especially angered Wick.
On the contrary, Wilcox said, the options were written to be policy proposals.
According to the minutes, Srinivasan said the task force "did not submit a formal policy draft as we would have preferred" and that, he said, is why no vote was ever taken.
the task force's work
known that a third policy had been written.
Two task force members, Clindy Hodges, former president of Classified Senate, and Bezaleel Benjamin, professor of architectural engineering, said they had not even
"I had no understanding that there would be a melding of the policies," she said. "I thought they would go through SenEx and then to Council."
Wilcox, Srinivasan said, was in on the writknown that a third policy had been written. Friiaf said that he and Srinivasan had written Option C, which is the policy facing Council's final approval today, because it was the best melding of Options A and B.
Friauf said that for about two hours Nov. 30, 1993, the day before SenEx would meet, he and Srinivasan met to write the third onition.
Not exactly so, Wilcox said. He characterized his inclusion on the writing of the policy as "an 11th-hour operation."
"The day before the policy was presented,
the secretary of SenEx called asking if I had time to look over something Srinivasan and Friauf had written. "Wilcox said, 'I spent one
hour, maybe more, looking over what they had written. Most of the policy was written by the time I got there, so I just made minor editorial changes."
That policy was what ended up leaving SenEx for Council, amended in form.
Wick said conflict might not have developed from certain members of the task force if the final policy had been more representative of what the task force had recommended.
Both options from the task force opposed to a ban to consensual relations on philosophical and practical grounds.
Hardly anyone disputes that Option C takes a stronger stance on consensual relations than anything produced by the task force.
"It is, perhaps, a little stronger on some circumstances." Prifau said.
But it's a lot more than a "little stronger" to some task force members.
"If you're going to have a task force, I'd like to see the work of the task force supported," Hodges said. "You spend a lot of time on it, and to have this happen, it makes you wonder. We all thought we were doing the right thing."
What a shot!
Guard Steve Woodberry made a gamewinning three-pointer with less than two seconds left.
Page 7
Board of Regents has final say on degree cuts
By Jamie Munn
Kansan staff writer
Despite complaints from state legislators and appeals to University Council, seven degree programs are likely to be eliminated at the Board of Regents meeting today in Topeka.
The master's degree in atmospheric science, the only one of its kind in the state, is among the degrees the University has decided to discontinue.
Frank Sabatini, a member of Regents,
said he didn't think there would be any special considerations for the proposed eliminations.
"Basically we're relying on the University to weed out what they think should be integrated or dropped," he said.
Sabatini said he thought that the University's study, which had determined student interest in each program, had been complete. Keeping programs without any interest did not make much sense, he said.
"That's why we're asking them to consolidate and eliminate." Sabati said.
David Shulenburger, vice chancellor for academic affairs, said the University's limited funds would focus on those programs central to the mission of the University.
"Had we ample funding, all of the programs we have discontinued would have
Bachelor's, master's and doctoral
been maintained and strengthened," he said.
Although some of the programs will be completely eliminated, others will be incorporated into other departments.
"We would certainly like the Regents to reverse the decision on that program," Prosser said.
The cuts became effective Dec. 31, 1993. Although no new students will be enrolled in the discontinued programs, students currently pursuing these degrees will be allowed to complete their studies by Dec. 31, 1996.
However, Francis Prosser, associate chair of the department of physics and astronomy, said he still had hope, especially for the master's in atmospheric science.
On the line
The fate of seven KU academic degrees rests with the Board of Regents today.
Master of science in atmospheric science
Bachelor of science in atmospheric science
Bachelor of arts in atmospheric science
Bachelor of arts in comparative literature
Bachelor of arts in computer science
Bachelor of general studies in computer science
Bachelor of arts in Italian
degrees in computer science will continue to be offered in the School of Engineering. Comparative literature classes will continue in the department of English, and Italian courses will be consolidated into the department of French and Italian.