---

agenda status: approved

Agenda:

1. Approval of the Agenda
   
   
   
2. Approval of the Minutes of the March 19, 2009 meeting
   
   
   
3. Comments from the Chairperson
   
   
   
4. Comments from the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education
   
   
   
5. Proposed Revision to the MSU Anti-Discrimination Policy
   Kristine Zayko, Deputy General Counsel
   
   
   
6. Request for a Moratorium on Admission to the Bachelor of Music Degree in Music Therapy.........(Attachment)
   Jim Forger, Dean, College of Music
   
   
   
7. Request to Require a Grade of 2.00 in HRT 259A, HRT 259B, and HRT 259C in the Organic Farming Agricultural Technology Certificate .........(Attachment)
   Eunice Foster, Associate Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
   John Biernbaum, Professor, Horticulture Department
   
   
   
8. Religious Observance Policy Revision – Discussion
   Michael Schechter, Subcommittee Chairperson
   John Gore, Jim Smith, Subcommittee Members
   
   
   
9. Roundtable

---

---

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of 04/02/2009

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 03/26/2009

Attending: Mary Jo Arndt, Dennis Banks, Mary Burleson, R. Sekhar Chivukula, Peter Cobbett, Doug Estry, Guiseppe Getto, Mandalyn Griffin, Richard Hallgren, Caroline Hartig, Linda Jackson, Michael Lawrence, Carolyn Loeb, Brad McDonald, Malea Powell, Jerry Punch, Michael Schechter, Sharif Shakrani, Steve Shaw, Mike Shields, Jim Smith, Tom Volkening

Not Attending: John Gore, Hovig Kouyoumdjian, A. Mahdi Saeed

The Agenda was approved.

The Minutes of the March 19 meeting were approved as amended with the following addition to the section regarding the proposed revision to the MSU Anti-Discrimination policy:

Professor Lawrence suggested the wording of the Anti-Discrimination amendment could be shortened without effect by inserting the words "protected speech in" in the first sentence and eliminating the last sentence, as follows: These prohibitions are not intended to abridge University community members' rights to free expression or other civil rights and are not applicable to protected speech in public speeches by university community members or by the presenters legally invited to the University by student groups or other University personnel.

Comments from the Chairperson
There were no comments from Chairperson Chivukula.

Comments from the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education
Associate Provost Estry reported that he had received seven responses from committee members for the online draft academic dishonesty reporting form. He asked that any further recommendations be forwarded to him quickly in order for the draft form to be completed and tested.

Associate Provost Estry reported that he was beginning work on the education part of the Integrity of Scholarship and Grades policy.

Proposed Revision to the MSU Anti-Discrimination Policy
Kristine Zayko, Deputy General Counsel

The committee unanimously granted voice to Deputy General Counsel Zayko.

Deputy General Counsel Zayko stated that as part of her position in the Office of the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel, she works with university governance on drafting and revising university policy as well as advising on First-Amendment and harassment issues. She described the process she uses to determine whether a policy requires revision, including asking the following questions: 1) Is there a problem? 2) What needs to be fixed? 3) What is the goal? 4) How can the language be drafted to meet that goal?

Ms. Zayko stated that, in her opinion, the current MSU Anti-Discrimination Policy statement is clear and legally sound. If confusion or discomfort exists among faculty, staff, or students, clarity could be provided by additions to the policy or in published guidelines for the policy. She stated that parts of the proposed amendment are legally problematic. The addition that the Anti-Discrimination Policy is not applicable to “public speeches by university community members or by presenters legally invited to the University by student groups or other University personnel” limits the applicability of the ADP to such groups categorically. This is contrary to MSU’s legal obligation to investigate and take prompt remedial action if harassment or discrimination is occurring on campus. Finally, she commented that she sees no legal problem with the principle articulated in the last sentence of the proposed amendment, which reads, "Specifically, no disciplinary actions may be taken against such speakers or speaker sponsors for protect First Amendment speech." However, she commented that the term “disciplinary actions” may be too limited in scope and it would be more appropriate to be clear that the University will take no adverse action against any individual for speech protected under the First Amendment.

Ms. Zayko suggested that, if the committee were inclined toward an amendment to the existing policy, there be further review to draft language more correctly clarifying balance between First Amendment protections and the requirements of anti-discrimination laws.

Ms. Zayko responded to the Committee’s previously submitted questions:
Q: Is there any way, legally, that the current MSU Anti-Discrimination policy could be used to sanction free speech?
A: No, if the Anti-Discrimination Policy were violated, the speech would not have been protected speech.

Q: Does the proposed revision add any protections, given the U.S. Constitution?
A: No, the existing policy is clear.

Q: Does the proposed revision contradict any existing laws?
A: Part of the first sentence of the amendment is legally problematic.

Q: If the proposed amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Policy had been in place prior to the Simcox speech, would events have happened as they did?
A: The complaints would have been investigated regardless, because the University is obligated to investigate when a formal complaint is filed.

Deputy General Counsel Zayko reported that the University is currently working on a user’s manual that interprets the Anti-Discrimination Policy. This may be a way of providing clarity to the Anti-Discrimination Policy. In addition, the UCFA has requested that the University begin a review of its Sexual Harassment Policy. This might provide an opportunity to review the Anti-Discrimination Policy as well.

The Committee reached a consensus that the proposed amendment was legally problematic. However, as a consequence of its deliberations about the proposed amendment, it agreed that more review was required by it or other governance bodies and the Office of the Legal Counsel on issues related to the Anti-Discrimination Policy and the procedures by which the Policy is applied.

Motion by Michael Lawrence passed unanimously.

The University Committee on Academic Policy (UCAP) believes that the proposed amendment to the MSU Anti-Discrimination Policy (ADP) has significant legal deficiencies. In addition, the committee is not persuaded that modification of the ADP is necessary.

However, given the importance of free speech, especially in an academic environment, UCAP suggests that the ADP be reviewed by the appropriate university standing committees and the Office of the General Counsel to determine whether modification of the ADP is required to clarify the meaning of the phrase "these prohibitions are not intended to abridge University community members' rights of free expression”.

UCAP recommends that Faculty and Academic Councils defer judgment on whether action is required until such a review of the MSU Anti-Discrimination Policy has been completed.

Request for a Moratorium on Admission to the Bachelor of Music Degree in Music Therapy
James Forger, Dean, College of Music

The committee unanimously granted voice to Dr. Forger, Dean of the College of Music.

Dean Forger summarized the issues and process that led to the decision by the College of Music to recommend a moratorium on admission to the Music Therapy undergraduate program. Dr. Forger stated that the decision was consistent with budget planning narratives for possible economic downturns submitted by the College since 2004. The College of Music, faced with significant budget reductions in the next year, made the strategic decision to downsize in order to maintain excellence in the integrative core Music programs. The Music Therapy program, a pioneer program founded in 1944, has had a 40% decline in enrollment over last three years with only 34 students now enrolled. All current students have been guaranteed degree completion and a plan is in place to accomplish this.

Chairperson Chivukula reminded the committee that this issue falls under section 4.4.4 of the governance bylaws which state that “The Committee on Academic Policy shall consult with the Provost on the establishment, disbandment, or merger of undergraduate programs”, and that consultation is defined in section 1.3.1 of these bylaws as:

“A body of faculty and/or students who discuss with and inform the administrator with authority and responsibility for decision. Such a committee is not a deliberative body; there is no vote. Rather, the members express their views to inform an administrator's decision.”

Committee discussion centered on the following issues:

• timing of a decision to disband the program
• reason for declining Music Therapy enrollments
• effect the moratorium will have on Music Therapy clinical services

Committee consensus was that the moratorium was a necessary response to the current economic conditions.

Request to Require a Grade of 2.00 in HRT 259A, HRT 259B, and HRT 259C in the Organic Farming Agricultural Technology Certificate
Eunice Foster, Associate Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
John Biernbaum, Professor, Horticulture Department

The committee unanimously granted voice to Associate Dean Foster and Professor Biernbaum.

Associate Dean Foster provided the committee with a history of the Agricultural Technology Program and the recent creation of the Organic Farming program. The rationale behind the request for a grade of 2.0 in the core courses of the program was that progression without a minimum understanding of the core knowledge of each course would not only disadvantage the individual student, but also seriously disadvantage the cohort, which depends on an individual’s mastery of core knowledge for group success.

After brief discussion, the committee recommended that the Organic Farming program faculty, according to University operating procedure, determine the minimum skills and knowledge necessary for progression and base the grading structure on the extent to which a student exhibited them. Not meeting the minimum would constitute a failing grade. To the extent that the skills and knowledge met or exceeded the minimum, the full range of grades from 1.0 to 4.0 could be utilized. The committee did not endorse the request to require a grade of 2.00 in HRT 259A, B, or C.

Associate Dean Foster and the Organic Farming program faculty will review the balance of the request to UCC and provide any necessary changes or edits to reflect UCAP’s decision.

Religious Observance Policy Revision – Discussion
Michael Schechter, Subcommittee Chairperson
John Gore, Jim Smith, Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee Chairperson Schechter reported that the subcommittee had received input from a number of committees, especially COGS and ASMSU. Committee discussion centered on the following:

• Should item # 3 regarding course-specific attendance policy, be added to the policy section or remain in the guidelines section?
• How does item #3 relate to groups who miss classes for university obligations?
• Does the committee agree that students should not be asked to use elective days off for religious observance?

The committee consensus was for item # 3 to remain in the document. Chairperson Chivukula asked the committee to direct any further comments about the revision to Michael Schechter.

Dr. Chivukula asked the subcommittee to prepare the revision to the University Policy on Religious Observance for a final vote at the April 2 UCAP meeting. He suggested the subcommittee prepare a document summarizing the input provided by other campus committees and UCAP’s response to the suggestions to accompany the revision. The meeting was adjourned at noon.

Respectfully submitted by
Sandra Walther

---