BFC by pengxiuhui


									                              Transcript of the
                              February 15, 2005
                             Ballantine Hall 008
                               3:30-5:30 P.M.

Members Present: Lisa Bingham, Craig Bradley, John Carini, Tyson Chastain, David Daleke,
Luis Davila, Erika Dowell, Paul Elliott, Emily Fairchild, Eric Garza, Laura Ginger, Ken Gros
Louis, Michael Hamburger, Margaret Intons-Peterson, Robert Ivie, Cecile Jagodzinski, Elizabeth
Johnson, Robert Kravchuk, Jesse Laffen, Bradley Levinson, David MacKay, Terrence Mason,
Dale McFadden, Murray McGibbon, Daniel Melamed, Alyce Miller, Theodore Miller, Richard
Nash, John Odland, Harold Ogren, James Patterson, Amy Reynolds, Jeanne Sept, James
Sherman, John Slattery, Sarita Soni, Herbert Terry, Neil Theobald, Richard Viken, Cara
Wellman, William Wheeler, Gary Wiggins, Eric Zeemering

Members Absent with Alternates: Richard Carr for Gerald Marker, Isabel Piedmont for Jane

Members Absent with no Alternates: Simon Brassell, Bonnie Brownlee, Romualdo De Souza,
Sandra Dolby, Elin Jacob, Susan Jones, Bryan McCormick, Barry Rubin, LTC Mike Scudder,
Holly Stocking, Larry Thibos, Thomas Walsh

Visitors Present: Tim Arth, Bob Eno, Pam Freeman, Bruce Jacobs, Dan Maki, Richard McKaig,
Mary Popp, Bob Weith


   1. Memorial Resolutions
   Gordon Glenn Heath
   Roy Sieber

   2. Agenda Committee Business
   (Professor David Daleke)

   3. Presiding Officer’s Business
   (Chancellor Ken Gros Louis)

   4. Question / Comment Period
   (Chancellor Ken Gros Louis)

   5. Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Academic Integrity Policy (Action Item)
   (Professor David Daleke, BFC Liaison to COIA)

   Executive Summary:

   6. Resolution on Plagiarism Software (Action Item)
   (Professor William Wheeler, Chair, Educational Policies Committee)

   7. Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct (First Reading)
   (Librarian Mary Popp, Co-Chair, Student Affairs Committee)

   8. Conflict of Interest Committee Annual Report
   (Professor Roger Dworkin, Chair, Conflict of Interest Committee)

   9. General Education at Indiana University
   (Professor William Wheeler, Chair, Educational Policies Committee)

   10. Standing Committee Reports
   11. Old Business
   12. New Business


GROS LOUIS: First item on the agenda, two memorial resolutions and I will call on Jeanne
Sept for those please.

SEPT: We have two memorial resolutions today. The first one is for Dean Emeritus Gordon G.
Heath, and again, I’ll refer you to the—this is an abbreviated version, I’ll refer to the complete
one in your notes. IU School of Optometry and Professional Optometry lost one of its major
guiding spirits of the twentieth century Dr. Gordon Heath, Dean Emeritus of the Indiana
University School of Optometry and the past President of the American Academy of Optometry
passed away in June in Bloomington. He is survived by Dorothy his loving wife of 50 years, five
children and 12 grandchildren. Dr. Heath’s legacy to optometry and the vision sciences is evident
in the number of research careers in optometry and vision science that he helped launch and in
his service to the profession in which he served in many leadership positions both nationally and
internationally. With degrees from the University of California-Berkeley, Dr. Heath came to IU
in 1955 as a full-time faculty member and director of its optometry clinic. Under his direction for
five years the clinical activities of the fledgling program grew to a point where appointments
were booked three months in advance. Dr. Heath was then appointed the director of the emerging
and vibrant graduate program in physiological optics, from which he served from 1960 to 1970.
Professor Heath was an excellent graduate director and mentor. Under his leadership the IU
graduate program in physiological optics experienced tremendous growth and success—so much
that in 1988 the graduates of the physiological optics program celebrated Dean Heath’s
significant contributions to teaching and vision research by presenting a formal symposium in his
honor entitled Vision Science Symposium: A Tribute to Gordon Heath. The proceedings were
published in 1989. In 1970 Gordon Heath became the director of the Division of Optometry,
College of Arts and Sciences. He immediately took upon the challenge of changing the status of

the program from a division within Arts & Sciences to school within Indiana University. In 1975
Gordon Heath was appointed the new school’s first dean. Dean Heath recognized that for the
benefit of patients, optometry needed to develop a curriculum that would embrace the biomedical
sciences. He recruited faculty with strong biomedical experience in teaching and research. In the
1980s under his leadership the school’s research program included neuroanatomy,
neurophysiology, cellular molecular biology and vision as well as the more traditional research
programs in physiological optics, psychophysics and clinical optometry ensuring that IU
optometry graduates got the best possible training to provide outstanding primary eye care to the

After he stepped down from the dean’s position in 1988, Gordon Heath returned to his faculty
role for the next three years directing the graduate program and actively participating in research.
While part of his career was devoted to administrative service he was a renounced scientist as
well working on electrophysiology of the retina, color vision and color blindness, photo
receptive directionality, refractive areas, visual acuity and corneal topography. He published
extensively in outstanding scientific journals and also co-authored two books. As an
administrator he published numerous papers emphasizing the importance of research for a
learned profession.

Gordon Heath served his profession well as the President of the American Academy of
Optometry and as the President of the Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry. He
served as a research consultant to the Office of the Surgeon General of the Army and National
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, and the NIH among many others. The many
honors that Dr. Keith received during his lifetime include the Honorary Doctorate degree from
SUNY University in New York, the Life Fellowship of the American Academy of Optometry
and the Distinguished Service to Optometry Award from the Indiana Optometric Association. As
a mark of his continued and future influence on the field a fellowship in his name is given every
year by the Indiana Chapter American Academy of Optometry for an outstanding graduate
student in visual sciences and physiological optics. Submitted by Sarita Soni, Clifford Brooks,
and Daniel Gerstman.

The second Memorial Resolution is for Professor Roy Sieber. Roy Sieber came to Indiana
University in 1962 to teach in what was then the Department of Fine Arts—a unit that embraced
both the history of art and studio art. Roy was in his element in an environment that allowed for
ready contact with studio artists and for close collaboration with the Indiana University Art
Museum. During his years at IU he was closely associated with the creation and development of
the university’s now renowned African Studies Program. He mentored several generations of
PhD students many of whom went on to prominent positions and with the help of the IU Art
Museum’s first director, Henry R. Hope, his successor, Thomas T. Solley, and important
individual donors, such as Raymond and Laura Wielgus, he built an impressive collection of
African, Oceanic, and Pre-Columbian art for the Art Museum. This collection is a lasting tribute
to his belief that future specialists in African art should be versed in connoisseurship, that is, to
be able—as he was—to distinguish nuances of style and craftsmanship and to understand the
story that they tell about an object’s place of origin and use and about the aesthetic decisions
made by its creator. Ultimately, he believed, objects could reveal “the premises and the logic that
every society builds for itself.”

After 1983 Roy taught part time at IU while serving as Associate Director for collections and
research at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African Art in Washington, D.C.
Though he officially retired from both IU and the Smithsonian in 1994, he continued to maintain
a full schedule of teaching, research, exhibition, and consulting activities. Roy’s initial research
concentrated on arts of Nigeria and Ghana and his publications in these areas are today
considered priceless in the field. He is also remembered by his colleagues as a driving force
shaping the field of African art. Among other achievements Roy insisted on including non-
figurative art forms such as textiles, jewelry and household objects within the canon of African
art, regarding these objects as fully equal in importance to the figures and sculptures that
Western art historians and collectors then regarded as the central achievement in African art. He
presented this point of view in two pioneering exhibitions and their accompanying catalogues.
Later, he advocated a further expansion of the canon to include non-permanent popular forms
such as headgear and coiffures, interests reflected in his last exhibition, the memorable Hair in
African Art in Culture, which he co-curated with Frank Herreman at the Museum for African
Art. In addition to New York, that exhibition’s venues included Stanford, Atlanta, Detroit, Los
Angeles, and the IU Art Museum. In 2000 the African Studies Association recognized Roy by
awarding him the Distinguished Africanist Award, fitting recognition for someone who, after
receiving the first Ph.D. in African Art History in the United States, continued for nearly 45
years as powerful, instrumental voice in his field. Professor Roy Sieber passed away in
September 2001, he is survived by his wife Sophie and his children Mark, Thyne, Ellen, and
Matthew. Respectfully submitted Janet Kennedy and Diane Pelrine.

GROS LOUIS: Thank you. I ask members of the Council and guests to stand for a moment of
silence please. Thank you.


GROS LOUIS: Next is the Agenda Committee business and I will turn it over to David.

DALEKE: Good afternoon everyone. I hope that by now you have received your ballots for the
election for the BFC for next year. If you have not received one please contact Kelly to make
sure that one gets delivered to you. We are conducting the election throughout this month and I
don’t know if we have set a hard date yet, but we expect by March 1st to have all the balloting
completed. You may also have received in your email a survey on use of faculty leave policy,
you might remember I think we discussed this last year, the University Faculty Council Fringe
Benefits Committee is evaluating the Partially Paid Family Leave Policy and is making
recommendations for changes to that policy, if any, which will have to be ultimately approved by
the Board of Trustees. Part of that evaluation of the policy is to collect information on how
faculty have used the policy, whether they have or whether they haven’t, and then use that to
evaluate whether or not we need to make some significant changes and there have been some
discussions about how the policy might possibly be changed. One piece of information that is
very hard to collect is the non-use of the policy; that is for individuals who qualify for the policy
but choose not to use it because then they don’t enter into a recordable system and this is the one
mechanism by which you can record your non-use of the policy and the reasons for it. So please
pass that message along to your colleagues, this is a very important exercise. I can tell you the

Trustees pay very close attention to this and we would like to give them as much information as
possible about how its being used to support any recommendations that we might have.

In addition, I am serving on the nominations committee for the faculty member who sits on the
Indiana Commission for Higher Education. This is a two-year term and the senior co-secretary of
the UFC has the pleasure of sitting on the nominations committee. We have met once by
teleconference and have decided to send out all of the nominations forms and information on
February 21st. We will do that by email so I wanted to alert you all to the fact that this is coming.
The applications will be due on April 1st and all the details will be contained in that mailing. But
this is a good time to start thinking about individuals who you may wish to nominate or
encourage to be nominated to serve on the Indiana Commission for Higher Education. All of the
seats on the commission are appointed except for two and that is one faculty position and one
student position and this is the mechanism that we use to nominate people—in fact the
nominations committee represents faculty from all across the state and we submit a list of names
to the Governor from which he picks the faculty commissioner.

I also would like to report on some UFC business. We at our last UFC meeting we approved the
recommendations of the Graduate Studies Task Force and Continuing Studies Task Force that
came out of the Long Range Planning Committee and the Distributed Education Committee
respectively. As many of you are aware the recommendations that came from the BFC were
essentially the same that were put forward at the UFC with some differences, a few differences.
If you are interested in seeing the final resolutions they are posted on the UFC website, but I just
wanted to report that our recommendations have now gone forward to Ken Gros Louis and to the

Today’s agenda is rather full and I imagine is going to generate a significant amount of
discussion so I won’t go over the agenda items in detail but I do want to give you a heads up
about the Coalition item. There have been changes to the deadlines for voting for the academic
integrity document which may cause us to choose to vote on the entire document at some other
time. In addition there have been a number of amendments that have been proposed and we may
wish to consider those amendments over the next week and place our votes of the amendments
first but I will present that when we get to that item. The Turnitin software discussion continues
at this meeting. We heard David Goodrum present this to us at our last meeting. We have had
significant amount of discussion in the Educational Policies Committee and I know that IUSA
has been involved in this and they have had their own independent discussions as well so we
will, the EPC is bringing forward to us a recommendation on that. The student code revisions
continue and we will hear an update from Mary Popp and we heard an update at the UFC as well
and it sounds like things are moving along right on schedule so we will actually be done with it
by the end of the semester. The Conflict of Interest Annual Report is a report that we do hear
every year—this is a committee that evaluates conflicts of interest. I just want to clarify that this
is different from the previous discussions we have had over the past year on the revisions of
Conflict of Interest [Commitment] Policies. So this is a report of the committee that works on
this area, we are still working on the revisions of those policies at the UFC. Lastly on the list is a
discussion, probably the first of a few discussions we will have on General Education, again
coming from the Education Policies Committee. That’s all I have for Agenda Committee
business today.


GROS LOUIS: Thanks David. I have no Presiding Officer’s Business and I received one
question in advance having to do with a Budgetary Affairs Committee issue. The question was,
is there any ruling on whether the campus can use general funds to respond to requests from the
Army and Air Force ROTC units here. And the answer is that yes campus funds can be used, it’s
not illegal. So that’s the only question I had.


GROS LOUIS: So are there any questions from the floor or comments for either David, the
Agenda Committee, or for me? Luis?

DAVILA: I’d like to refer Council, at least some of you might have seen this story in the IDS
today on the bill that is in the legislature purportedly protecting academic rights for students.
And serving the Faculty Affairs Committee as I do I know that I will suggest to my colleagues in
that committee that we at least be attentive and vigilant as administrators are here on this campus
and university-wide to be aware of a type of entanglement that is really activistic. The Bill of
Right for this country was to prevent us from having loyalist activism imposed through our
Constitution. This type of phenomena, as I see it, and is my point of view is a retrogressive
activism that wrongly portrays academic freedom and the rights that we have as an academy to—
it ultimately proposes a litmus test for a faculty member or other who ought to be liberal or
conservative. I think that it is a serious matter and we can say let it lie, don’t make too much
noise, don’t pay attention, it will die in committee. But still we should be sensitive to this type of
Orwellian behavior which calls things by their opposite name because it sounds good. I would
like to also at least mention one of the members of our Council Robert Ivie who was quoted here
in this story warning us that it is just this type of phenomenon. Not everyone might agree with
me but I wanted to make this statement because it is terribly important. It is a type of activism
that we should not have in the academy, even the headline writer, who is quite often independent
of the story writer proposes a perceived liberal bias. I myself don’t think there is such a thing and
its an oxymoron to talk about liberal bias. If anything liberals make plenty of room for
conservatives and others. So academic freedom in part is in play here as to how we propose the
facts as we know them. Thank you for your indulgence in allowing me an extra minute or so.

GROS LOUIS: Thank you those were very good points. I agree. Other comments or questions?

BINGHAM: A question in connection with the study we received a couple meetings ago
regarding long term changes in the faculty census and composition. I was wondering whether
any similar information might be available for changes over a similar period of time in
administrative staffing and the central administration to help us put this in perspective?

GROS LOUIS: I don’t think such a document exists but we can certainly create one. So what
you are asking for is—at what level, deans and vice presidents, or chairs and vice presidents and
deans or what?

BINGHAM: Well, I think actually it’s the overall budget proportion that is allocated to central
administration as we see shifts in resources and academic programs it will be interesting to see
over time shifts in resources at all staffing levels in the central administration.

GROS LOUIS: Okay, so you are referring specifically to the central administration?

BINGHAM: Yes, my understanding is that there hasn’t been dramatic change in the
Chancellor’s office.

GROS LOUIS: It’s true. Well one dramatic change. [Laughter] Ted?

MILLER: If I could just follow up on Lisa’s point with regard to which positions might be
included here. You may recall that in our last meeting there was distributed a matrix of
appointment information. If you look at the top of that document you will find a set of
administrative appointment categories that are used on the academic side. That would be a place
to start with this. But we all know that not all of the administrative appointments at the university
are academic appointments. There are a lot of staff appointments as well. And it seems to me if
we are going to have an accurate account of this we need something pertaining to both sides.

GROS LOUIS: The question really is the level of staffing over the last decade in the central
administration and the level of budget change?


GROS LOUIS: Neil is that something you think you could work with Steve Keucher on?


GROS LOUIS: Other questions or comments? Craig?

BRADLEY: I guess this is more for David, or maybe for the group as a whole. We received a
parking report at the beginning of this year which was farmed out to various committees and
from those committees we have heard nothing. I was wondering if we have any sense of when
we might be hearing from those committees.

DALEKE: That’s a good question. We haven’t heard anything—that is the Agenda Committee
hasn’t heard anything from those committees—about the status of those discussions but that is
certainly something that we can ask for and since the chairs of the committees are here I guess I
can officially ask them to report back to the Agenda Committee if you have had any discussions
and if you have what has been discussed. And if you would like a refresher on some of those
issues just let me know and I will be happy to send out the information that we received earlier
on this year.

GROS LOUIS: Great. Other questions or comments? If not then we move to the next item of
the agenda which is the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Academic Integrity Policy which
was discussed at the last meeting and I’ll turn it over to David and I would also like everybody to
know that Bob is here as he was last time.


DALEKE: Welcome Bob. And Bob please correct me if the information I am about to give out
is in detail is incorrect. As you know the last time we met I presented to you the executive
summary of the Academic Integrity document from the COIA and referred everyone to the
website which had the full document in case you wished to read all the details. Since our meeting
however, members of the Coalition asked for an extension on the voting deadline. Last time I
reported to you that it was due February 28 that’s now been extended to April 1st. In addition to
that today was the deadline for the submission of amendments to the document which means of
course that we couldn’t get those amendments into your hands before this meeting and in fact
minutes before this meeting three more amendments were submitted and are not reflected in the
paper that is going around the room. So what I would like to do is to propose that we take the
next week to consider the amendments and also any other further comments you wish to make
about the document and submit those comments by email to the Agenda Committee and have the
Agenda Committee render our vote on the amendments. At that point then we can come back to
the full Council with a report on the result of the amendment voting and then we can vote on the
final document as a body in one of our upcoming meetings. That doesn’t mean that we can’t
discuss the document today if anybody has some burning desire to say a few words.



MILLER: I have a question about the reporting line this is in section 5 of the document. If I
understand it correctly this recommends that the office of advising for athletes report to the
campus chief academic officer.

DALEKE: That’s correct.

MILLER: Am I sitting next to that person? Is that your understanding?

DALEKE: The chief academic officer? I think I was sitting next to that person.

MILLER: Are you the Chief Academic Officer Ken?

NASH: It’s Kelly. [Laughter]

GROS LOUIS: I interpret this to mean, and Bob can clarify, I interpret this to mean that report
to the chief academic officer, which would be me, but that I might delegate it to someone in the
campus administration. Bob is that accurate?

ENO: Yes.

GROS LOUIS: I think that the intent here is that it not report to athletics that it report to
academics. And I think you’re aware of the scandals of Minnesota and Ohio State where, where
they did report to Athletics the advisors were asked to do things that were inappropriate.

MILLER: Well have you given any thought to who might delegate this to if you…?

GROS LOUIS: Yes actually this is something … I can’t remember if I reported on this last fall
or not, Ted, I should have. The President had asked Charlie Nelms and me to look at the
academic advising program. We brought in two consultants: Buzz Kurpius, who as many of you
know was the director of the program for a number of years, and a man named Phil Jones who
has been the vice president for student affairs at Iowa for many many years. They made a review
of the office and made some recommendations. We have shared that report with Rick Greensban
and Charlie Nelms and I are meeting with Greenspan and Amelia, who heads the academic
advising program, I think two weeks from today to discuss their thoughts on the
recommendations. So to answer your question, I would have it report to, at the moment Ed
Rhodes, who is the Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Support and Student Diversity.


GROS LOUIS: The main reason for that was that the President had asked Charlie and me to
look into it. So if the Council or the Agenda Committee has some other thoughts that is fine with

SHERMAN: There is now I think its an annual or semi-annual review of academic advising by a
committee that’s independent of the Athletic Department. Is this [background noise; some
comments lost]

GROS LOUIS: I don’t know. Tyson?

CHASTAIN: You just answered my first question. My second question with changing where
this academic advising reported, is there any question of possible funding coming out of that too
or not?

GROS LOUIS: Yes. That was a good way of thinking about it. The campus is being asked to
pick up the cost of the advising over a three year period. So the money is not being transferred
from [to] Athletics.

DALEKE: Ken, can you remind us of the total for each year?

GROS LOUIS: $250,000

DALEKE: So a total of $750,000 and that will stop.

GROS LOUIS: And then Charlie and I hope that there may be some economies of scale. One of
the recommendations for example from the consultants is that the athletic advisors go to the
same training as the University Division advisors and indeed be considered part of the UD staff
and also regular training sessions with the advisors in the various departments where a
significant number of athletes major. So there would, essentially the academic advising, while
still taking place out at Assembly Hall, would be linked with the other advising on the campus,
which I think is a good thing.

MILLER: But University Division that reports to Jeanne?

GROS LOUIS: That’s right, correct. Herb?

TERRY: Given what we spend on my department on advising that sounds like a lot of advising,
is that advising plus tutoring?

GROS LOUIS: Yes, its advising, tutoring and there is one learning disabilities specialist there.
And it is also the cost of computers. So it is everything. Maybe work study is in there. I don’t
know the extent of the budget but it’s not just the advisors. Other questions on the document that
you received before. Or David do you want to summarize briefly the amendments?

DALEKE: Well in fact as I said the amendments that you have in front of you are not the
complete version. I am holding a complete version. There is one typo on the current version you
have now. Instead of two amendment A 1’s there is actually (A1) and the second one is (A2), if
you would like to make that correction. But we will also make all of the amendments available to
everyone. Bob would like to make some comment on this because basically I know that some of
these amendments are fairly innocuous changes and I think that we would mostly be willing to
accept them but there are some that are a bit more controversial than others and I would rather
focus on those. Is there any of these you would like me to point to first?

ENO: Well there are a couple things that I might mention. First, amendment (A1) there is a
problem in the version that is here, you will be getting an email copy of the revised stuff tonight
and you may want to circulate it afterwards. The amendments as David said are still coming in
until midnight tonight and then we will freeze them and there will be a week before they are
voted on and then after that we will have a final document to vote on at the meeting after that.
The first amendment there is nothing struck out in your edition.

DALEKE: I pieced these together as fast as possible.

ENO: I understand. I got stuck on that too when I was piecing it together and I realized that that
was a change.

DALEKE: I see.

ENO: The amendments have three major sources. The University of North Carolina has been
suggesting continuously with the three Bylaw proposals that we have—which if proposed
become rules that the NCAA applies to all Division I schools—be instead regarded as best
practice recommendations without binding importance. And they’ve continued with that; their
amendment is amendment B2, or one of their amendments is amendment B2, and I commented
on the copy you have and I indicated that this revised amendment would be a best practice
recommendation and not a Bylaw proposal. I don’t know whether you forwarded to the Council,
David, the fact that Myles Brand, who is now the President of the NCAA, endorsed the idea of
the first two of these Bylaw proposals being considered by the NCAA.

DALEKE: I planned on mentioning that but I haven’t passed that information along.

ENO: Later today we got a request from Ohio State University to do the same conversion from
Bylaw proposal to best practice for the remaining two Bylaw proposals. So there is now on the
table among the amendments, there aren’t that many amendments, there are about nine that are
proposed. Three of them are to change those Bylaw proposals to Best Practices proposals. The
proposals from Arizona which are (A1), (B1) and (C1) were all purely intended to strengthen the
document along the lines we have already, it’s operating in. The Coalition Steering Committee
has tended to view (B1) and (C1) as unproblematic, friendly amendments. Whereas in (A1)
which focuses on the idea that athletic scholarship can only be revoked with the approval of the
chief academic officer or the Provost equivalent, Arizona offered an alternative of having an
appeals process, North Carolina offered a substitute of having an appeals process. Both of those
would be substitute changes to the goal of having an academic officer responsible and
answerable for any cancellation of a scholarship that gives access to academic goods, which is
what an athletic scholarship does.

So those are important amendments that involve substantial changes to the goals of the
document. Obviously amendment (C2) which we will strike entirely, it calls for reducing the
divided seasons. That is having for example a fall baseball season in addition to a spring baseball
season. Striking that would be a substantial change as well. Amendment (D) which is a request
for change in procedure that I suspect is going to pass and will affect the way that you might
want to think about this document. This document has several components to it, its got the
introduction, its got a whole bunch of specific proposals and then its got a whole bunch of
rhetoric. This proposal is to say that as far as voting goes what the Coalition membership
endorses, and what senates should consider endorsing, is the introduction that spells out the
overall goals and the specific proposals and that we shouldn’t be asking senates to endorse all of
the rhetoric in the documents, its not tied to a specific proposal. My suspicion is that that’s going
to pass and that what you will wind up voting on, whether you will vote on it today or vote on it
next time, would in fact be the specific proposals.

DALEKE: At the last Coalition meeting, I should point out, there was some significant
opposition to some of the rhetoric and not necessarily some of the points and I believe that’s
probably what’s going to make the document much more acceptable to those individuals or
schools that were objecting at the meeting.

ENO: I think in fact the sole vote against the document that occurred would probably have
evaporated with this amendment.

DAVILA: Bob, forgive my ignorance, but this discussion of Bylaws and best practice to me has
a ring of “Recommended by Duncan Hines” even if you don’t eat there. As a non-lawyer and a
non-expect by a long shot would this type of classification as recommended or best proposal fall
under the rubric of rhetoric?

ENO: If you look at what happened with the last document that we did which was on campus
athletic governance we recommended—it was almost all best practices, there were a few Bylaws
and they are working their way now through the NCAA system. A lot of institutions have not
paid any attention to it. Those institutions that have and there have been about I guess a dozen of
those institutions where faculty councils decided it was time to look at their campus structures,
discovered this document was out there and used as a reference document, and in those cases it
has been quite productive. The cases where it hasn’t work probably fall into two categories,
campuses that really don’t need the document because they are substantially following the best
practices and IU in the case of that last document would qualify in that category. And campuses
where there is quite weak faculty governance and they simply haven’t mobilized to address the
entire issue in which case our document was a great help to them. There are a lot of complexities
when you begin to look at the varieties of practices on 117 Division IA campuses we are
concerned about and it is extremely difficult to come out with any prescriptive formula that
would apply productively and fairly to all of them and not meet the challenge of being defeated
on the grounds of simply being inappropriate to the university, which is why there are so few
Bylaw proposals.

Some of what you are saying is true. These are model documents which I expect the NCAA to
wind up promoting that would probably have a long term gradual effect on a certain number of

DALEKE: Bob there are three Bylaw proposals in the document is that correct?

ENO: That’s correct.

DALEKE: And you talked about two of them of those are the one that Myles has endorsed but
the third one on the divided seasons did he render an opinion of this?

ENO: He did not mention that in the report.

DALEKE: And what do you think the NCAA will think of about that?

ENO: The NCAA won’t take that one up. There is considerable student athlete opposition to that
proposal on the grounds that its more rewarding for them to compete than it is for them to simply
practice in their off-season term, which I think we can all understand and sympathize with. The
position that the Coalitions has taken is that this is a matter that has to do with the relative
priority of academics and athletics; competitions always involve visiting teams, always take
students out of their class seats and we are concerned about the impact of that on academics. So I

do think that that one in fact will wind up having an advisory and a political type impact rather
than a Bylaw legislation.

DALEKE: Dan did you want to add anything?

MAKI: No I think Bruce mentioned two weeks ago that the Athletics Committee was strongly in
favor of this. You can nit-pick with the tiny things but in general we do most of this and we wish
everybody did. So we would like to encourage approval and hope that it spreads.

DALEKE: Ok, I propose that next week we have an email discussion rendering your opinions to
the Agenda Committee and the Agenda Committee next Tuesday will cast a vote on the
amendments and then at a future meeting we will bring this full document with the appropriate
amendments to you for a final vote.

GROS LOUIS: Further questions?

DALEKE: Thanks Bob, thanks Dan.


GROS LOUIS: We move next to the item that we discussed last time and it will be introduced
by Bill Wheeler chair of the Education Policy Committee.

WHEELER: Thank you. I’m actually here as the convener of the adhoc committee that
consisted of members from the Education Policies Committee, the Student Affairs Committee
and the Technology Policy committee that gathered down the hall, in Ballantine Hall 004 last
Thursday morning to discuss these issues. You have listed on the resolution the members of the
Council and of the Committees who attended the meeting. We had I thought a very productive
discussion, the outcome was the following. The majority of the adhoc subcommittee voted to
submit the resolution that is before you:

Let it be resolved that the use of Turnitin plagiarism detective service should be continued for a
period of three years and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should find funding for this

I note there that the College of Arts and Sciences has expressed through Dean Larson a strong
support for this resolution and the College says it has observed an increase of plagiarism and that
the Turnitin plagiarism detection services is a viable tool for dealing with this situation. The
points that came out the subcommittees discussion were the following: faculty with heavy
teaching loads especially those with large sections of several hundred students, or multiple
medium size sections, three medium size sections, to require papers in their courses report that
the Turnitin service is essential to their efforts to assess academic integrity. The Turnitin services
doesn’t provide conclusions it simply identifies things that we should take a second look at and if
you have several hundred pages then with the financial constraints on our, not having our
associate instructors to help us, there simply isn’t enough, we don’t have enough help to
carefully check everything in there. So what happens is the Turnitin service is used to identify

papers that have to be examined carefully by hand to determine whether there are actually any
issues there. For example if you actually quoted something and properly attributed then Turnitin
might flag it but when the instructor reviewed the report they would say oh this is properly
attributed so the Turnitin service does not lead to any conclusions it simply identifies those
things that the faculty and their assistants would heretofore have looked at and found out on their
own and then considered.

The second point is the College of Arts and Sciences reports that the incidence of plagiarism is
increasing and that Turnitin is a valuable service for dealing with it.

Third, we have from David Goodrum’s office a revised presentation of the statistics that he
presented last time so it becomes apparent that the use of the service has grown a great deal and
in fact the use this fall was twice as great as the use in each of the semesters last year. This
indicates that instructors as it becomes available during the pilot test were adopting it for use.
There is published research on the incidence of plagiarism and the effectiveness of plagiarism
detection software. That research indicates that verbal warnings were ineffective in reducing
plagiarism—that is simply telling people not to plagiarize was not useful, not effective in
reducing it. But that the introduction of the use of plagiarism detection software was highly
effective in reducing the incidents of plagiarism. And furthermore that when plagiarism goes
undetected that it does have a negative impact on the grades of students who do not plagiarize.
The research, there is not the greatest research that one might have, it is published in political
science publication, a publication of the national political science association, it wasn’t done by
people in educational research or in psychological research and so one can hope for perhaps a
better methodology but it is what is there.

Fifth, according to the Office of the University Counsel if student papers submitted to Turnitin
service reside only in database that is controlled by the university and this database is used only
to check other papers by IU students, then intellectual property rights of the students are not
infringed. So these were the points that came out in our discussion. I would like to, Garreth
Evans who was at the subcommittee meeting, has been able to join us today and I have asked
him to speak onto some of the points that he and Jennifer Maher in the Gender Studies
department made at the committee meeting. Garreth?

EVANS: Yeah, I used last semester I’m using it again this semester and the
semesters and the last couple of semesters that I taught I have always had plagiarized essays.
And last semester as far as I can tell I didn’t. So when I found that even now myself I always
include warnings that include university’s policy but those warnings and policies are just
ineffective. And I can talk until I’m blue in the face. Some people still don’t listen. And while
I’m sure that doesn’t catch everything it seems to catch enough to be effective. I
mean its not fraternity file proof but I had no essays that were obviously plagiarized last semester
and I haven’t had this semester, so it appears in fact that it obviously works well for faculty that
have a lot of classes. It’s a way too for the university to show that its serious about preventing
students from what, when it can come down to a simple word—cheating. And it’s a relatively
inexpensive way of doing that. It’s also extraordinarily timesaving and I don’t have to go rushing
around the web trying to find where people have taken material from. So I don’t have to go to
Google, I don’t have to go looking through books or essays, if its in database then

                                                 14 finds it. It also means for me at least even though I haven’t had students complain
about having to turn their essays into but it makes to me the whole situation in the
classroom less confrontational because I can just print out the copy of the paper and the paper
contains or the paper indicates, the paper I print, indicates portions of the essay that have been
plagiarized. [End of Tape 1, Side A, some words lost].

…the entire essay has been stolen from the web. So right there it makes it much much easier to
deal with plagiarism. I just present it at the beginning of the semester, I bring somebody in from
TLTC who talks about it with students. If students have questions they can ask questions either
to me or the person from TLTC. And it seems also to work, its not difficult to use but if you can
use IUCAT then you should be able to use without any problems. Or Internet
Explorer for that matter, it’s just like an attachment.

WHEELER: Thank you Gareth. I want to know the service is also useful for
educational purposes I wonder David if you might say a few words about your using it in your
graduate course last year and what you found when you used it.

DALEKE: I actually didn’t use it extensively it was just a trial with a few papers but one of the
things in the scientific world in terms of attribution is that we of course have international
students and the criteria for plagiarism is quite different that we have found, and I’m sure Pat and
others can talk to this as well. How you attribute for example in China, the acceptable
attributions, is completely different than the students we have who are trained as undergraduates
here. So catching a few instances of full lifting of lines out of manuscripts or websites and
putting it into a document even though its referenced, its not referenced completely correctly
gives a good teaching tool and I’ve used that minimally in my class in that way. But I think it
does give us the opportunity to just talk about it and engage the students. And in this case I
wasn’t using it to catch plagiarism as much as just to see how the program work and see how I
can use it in these much smaller classes.

WHEELER: Thank you.

GROS LOUIS: This adhoc committee was led by the EPC this comes to you as moved and
seconded and so it’s on the floor now for discussion. Tyson?

CHASTAIN: We have had a lot of student discussion about that and I’m concerned with the
comment you made with asking students because I think the situation you sort of putting them in
if they say yes the service is a little interesting to me we are not going to say no I didn’t like it
because then they might be assumed that they are plagiarizing. That’s an interesting subject that
we’ve been discussing with the IUSA Congress which some of you might know and some of you
don’t, Congress is representatives from all different areas that represent the schools they are in or
locations. We have had this discussion and a lot of the concerns are there because they really
don’t understand what the system will do, what policies, from my understanding that policies we
have now are supposedly not working so what will happen. So its a students concern. I would
like to if all possible to invite Scott Norman, one of our VPs of IUSA he has actually been
working on this issue, if that’s fine.


CHASTAIN: To discuss the issue, he has been talking to students.


NORMAN: Hi my name is Scott Norman and I’m one of the Vice Presidents s of IUSA. I
actually oversee Congress and I serve on the EPC. I don’t want you guys to confuse what we’re
here to do today, we are totally in favor of academic integrity. And on that note we identified a
couple of problems. One, there is not central authority for academic integrity. It has been brought
to our attention that students can in one sense or another cheat in Business, cheat in Music, cheat
in HPER and the message is never sent, brought together so that’s a concern.

Second, while this policy does hold students accountable and we are in favor of that, student
input has indicated that we would like to hold the professors accountable. I gave the testimonial
that only one time during my collegiate career, and this is my final semester, was I actually
instructed on how to properly paraphrase and was the topic of plagiarism discussed. In most
cases my professors have glanced over it, they have said you are a young adult now, you can
read the syllabus; let’s not have this discussion let’s move on.

The subcommittee discussed educational programs and its referenced in the document as well
about web-based tutorials and introducing a program for new students as part of the
arrangements for orientation. Before we go approving a policy I suggest that we make that
statement a reality. The student Congress hasn’t had adequate time to review this document. That
is the student feedback that we discussed but in the feedback that I have received students have
complained and had difficulty with uploading their papers and they are concerned that they will
be accused of cheating and if they are not intentionally plagiarizing they may not know that they
aren’t paraphrasing correctly. So there needs to be a strong element of education brought forth
before we go and approve some policy. With that I would like to turn it back over to Tyson.

CHASTAIN: I think Scott brought up the points about education so I guess one of the discussion
items we would like to possibly table this subject for further discussion just because the student
concerns and the possibilities of changing some things in the document.

GROS LOUIS: Is it my understanding Tyson that the IUSA congress has not completed its

CHASTAIN: We actually discussed at our last congress meeting about this issue but we haven’t
put it on the Turnitin situation or anything regarding the subject.

GROS LOUIS: So are you moving, are you making a motion to table until such a time that the
Congress votes?

NORMAN: Yes we are.

CHASTAIN: And it is not specifically to say the IUSA Congress, this is just student input and I
know you guys have always given us the chance to provide our student input and we respect that
but just with the hopes that we are all on the same page, that’s why we are asking to vote.

GROS LOUIS: Is there a second to the motion to table?

DAVILA: I second.

GROS LOUIS: Does the tabling need a discussion? The Parliamentarian has suggested that it
might be better to postpone the vote rather than table it. Is that ok?

CHASTAIN: That’s fine. I’m new to this stuff.

GROS LOUIS: Can there be a specific date given Tyson?

NORMAN: I think by your next session we would have enough time to look at the document
again but my only concern is that the adhoc committee that was formed might not have time to
realize some of those elements that they said they would, that we will explore. So I don’t know if
the committee is going to meet again but I think by your next meeting we will be ready to give
you feedback.

CHASTAIN: So it will be two weeks.

GROS LOUIS: So postponing then for 2 weeks? Okay, is this something that the majority needs
to vote in favor of?

TERRY: I have a question, are we postponing a vote on this or postponing discussion of it

GROS LOUIS: Postponing a vote on it.

CHASTAIN: Postponing a vote on it.

TERRY: So if this goes on, if this passes we can continue to discuss it which might be useful to
them in finding out what we think and then we’ll vote later.


CHASTAIN: I have a question, if this passes doesn’t this become administrational policy, is that
not how it works, does it just pass?

WHEELER: I personally don’t think of this, this doesn’t strike me as a policy. This is not a
policy statement it is just a motion to continue the use of the service for three years. And so the
concerns that you were expressing, you know if we were debating the student code and later
today we’ll be discussing academic integrity in the context of the student code, that’s a policy. I
don’t view this as a policy, this is a resolution which is—you know I think on the matter of

postponing a vote that we have to turn back to the Chancellor and inquire about the state of the
budgetary process because the issue is that this charges the Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs to find funding for this service and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is going to
have her budget conference in the not too distant future so that’s a relevant consideration.

GROS LOUIS: But I think that any decisions will come after the end of the budget conferences.
I hope all of you will attend the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs bake sale. [Laughter] So
the motion is to postpone until the next meeting a vote on this giving ample time then for the
IUSA congress to share with us its views. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor say
Aye. [Aye] Opposed? [NO] Abstain? It seems to me the Ayes have it unless someone wants to
call for a show of hands.

JAMES: On abstentions?

GROS LOUIS: Yes. It sounds like the Ayes have it. All agree? Professor Carr?

CARR: Absolutely.

GROS LOUIS: Okay then the vote is postponed until the next meeting but as Herb has indicated
there can be additional conversation and discussion about the software.

JAMES: If we were to continue this for three years I think some questions I would have would
be how is it going to be used, is it going to be used educationally in addition to punitively and
what about disclosure. Or will there be outlines given to professors that they need to disclose that
they will be using this service. That would be my concern with something as open-ended as this
resolution is. Also with the journals and magazines and subscriptions that Turnitin would access,
would this go broader than COAS subjects, with School of Optometry, School of Music, would
some of these other schools with their major research sources be involved in this? Is it going to
be useful to the field of music, for instance?

GROS LOUIS: David can you speak to which departments are using it presently?

GOODRUM: I’m not exactly sure, I know that the list of journals keeps growing and I will try
to find a whole listing of them. I will request that from Turnitin so that you can look at that and
decide for yourself whether it impacts broadly across majors or more specifically?

GROS LOUIS: Are you asking the question because of the financial implication if its only used
in a limited way?

JAMES: Yeah. You know obviously COAS is the majority of the campus. Particularly we have
a lot of international students in Music and just like David said there are these issues in terms of
how we attribute a few things?

GROS LOUIS: It would be useful to know that I think.

JAMES: Yeah. But I am concerned about for instance disclosure.

WHEELER: There are guidelines, you know at the last meeting, David distributed the
guidelines that the Teaching and Learning Technology Center has prepared for its training
sessions with faculty and those provide that there should discussion at the first day of class, that
it should be in the syllabus, they mention that they are willing to come and give demonstrations
class on how to use it. So some of those things were before us last week.

JAMES: Great.

GROS LOUIS: Peggy and then Bob?

INTONS-PETERSON: As we are considering that I would like to caution people to take a very
careful look at the research that’s been done in Missouri. It’s a relatively new area, obviously
people are starting to be interested in it and have been interested for a long time but now they are
taking more of a research respective. The one article that was cited and you received copies on
email—I don’t know how many people took the time to read it—but there were serious
problems, sorry about that, in this article which in my opinion render the conclusions untenable.
And I think we need to be careful because people rush to do some research probably because
they are interested in the area and they don’t have the time, they don’t have the wherewithal
necessarily to put in all of the controls that are needed. This article is a good example of that, so
please look carefully and just don’t take things at face value.


KRAVCHUK: Yeah, I’m a little concerned about what I’m hearing here concerning putting
instructors on notice. And the reason is we have an existing code of student conduct we have
listed academic rules and policies which cover plagiarism. And if I can catch a student
plagiarizing whether I subscribe to the service, find it myself, Google it, and if the kid is nailed
he’s dead to rights. Now what I’m hearing though is that if I don’t put it in my syllabus or
somehow put the students on notice then they could be off the hook in some sense and that just
doesn’t strike me as being right. And I hope that’s not what I’m hearing. If I do catch a student
plagiarizing I’m gonna fail him and I think that should be the beginning and the end of the story.
They have a right to a hearing at which I will present evidence but I’m going to fail him.

GROS LOUIS: Michael?

HAMBURGER: I just want to first thank the students for their comments and I think its very
important that they be heard and addressed in a substantive way. I don’t like the sense that this is
just a system that we are using to attack students and catch criminals with. I think in fact in my
experience with this it can be a very important learning and teaching tool about this issue. The
system as its designed can be implemented in a number of different ways. It can be done in a
draft mode where students can get their own feedback from the system before the final
submission is made. We can address questions of what is appropriate paraphrasing, what is
appropriate citation and so on. I think it has some very potentially some very positive uses in it.
My biggest concern about it is given the very small number, relatively small number of users so

far if its used sporadically it has much less value both as a teaching tool and as a plagiarism
detection tool. I think if we decide to proceed with this we have to decide to do it in a substantive
way so that for example all the sections in a given class are using it in more or less the same
manner and that its used pretty broadly across the campus.

GROS LOUIS: Richard?

NASH: My comments in some ways follow up on what Michael was just saying. I know we’re
only talking about $20,000 a year but I remember my grandmother teaching me that $20,000
saved is $20,000 earned. And I can’t help while I was looking over the pricing that even at a
discounted rate it looks to me like we are being priced for somewhere near 38,000 students,
37,000 students, and even that our high number we were serving maybe 10% of that with this in
the trial. My understanding was that when we bought this a year ago we bought it for trail so that
we can get some results and frankly these results are pretty meager any way I look at it. It seems
to me that I’m not sure who exactly paid for it the last time but I can understand why its having a
little hard time finding a buyer this time. If in fact what we have reported back are 11 cases of
plagiarism detected out of this and that is nice but I don’t think its worth $20,000. I think some
of us if we do our jobs well we can catch that plagiarism. I’m worried about whether or not we
are getting enough value from what we are buying from


EVANS: I’m surprised that your grandmother had that much money?

NASH: We spent profitable days distracted.

EVANS: Doesn’t the small number caught suggest, or possibly suggests, that many people who
might otherwise have plagiarized did not? So I don’t think you can rate its effectiveness from the
number of people caught, who were not smart enough not to plagiarize when you know you are
going to be caught. I mean it can be educational. In my case at least I’m certainly looking for
people who don’t paraphrase properly but I don’t fail them for that. I explain how to paraphrase
properly. What I’m looking for, as I said before, is those 6 or 7 sentences or whole paragraphs or
entire essays and its useful for both of those reasons. I agree it would be more useful if more
members of the faculty used it.

NASH: Well I think the larger point that I was getting at is that we paid for this a year ago so we
could do it on a trial basis and we didn’t really get much of a trail and it seems to me that in
some sense, if we’re thinking about this in terms of what we want to spend money on, if we are
going to do it then it seems to me we need to set it up in such a way that we are actually going to
get our monies worth out of it. We get a trial that gives us some results then we can decide do we
want to continue or not. It seems to me we did this a year ago and got back less information than
I certainly would like to have in making a decision about continuing. So I would like us to think
about that as we go forward.

WHEELER: If I could respond for a moment to that Richard. Let me mention that this data here
that David gave us last time this is self-reported through a survey and that number 11 is

indicating for the instructors who filled out a survey this is the number that is recorded there. If
we look into the report from Dean McKaig’s office from last time we see there were many more
cases of plagiarism last year. What we do not have—this question was raised last time—what we
do not have is actually information is of the cases that were processed but we won’t have that
report for another year yet because… there are two things going on, we do not have the data
from the office, from Pam Freeman’s office, secondly we would have to talk with Pam Freeman
to see whether or not they can release data of that nature. We will go to Pam Freeman and ask
her for clarification. The question was raised last time of Dean McKaig how many of those cases
did the Turnitin service figure in and that data wasn’t available last time so I think we need to
bear in mind that this is just a response to some survey the instructors were asked and it does not
represent a complete response of all the instructors asked and certainly it does not constitute
official statistics in comparison to those that we receive from the Dean of Students Office. So we
will ask about that and we can turn to Dick McKaig and ask him since he is here, if he can please
contact Pam Freeman and see whether or not in her files she can provide some information about
that. It depends upon whether the faculty member reported it. That is, in the report the faculty
member filed with Pam Freeman’s office did they detail whether or not Turnitin was used in that

GROS LOUIS: As fate would have it, Bill, Pam Freeman is here.

WHEELER: Is Pam here? I didn’t see her. She’s hiding, oh there she is.

GROS LOUIS: Did you hear the question, Pam?

FREEMAN: I do not have the data available with me about how many reports from last time
were reported based on

GROS LOUIS: Can you get it to Bill?

FREEMAN: I can get it.

GROS LOUIS: Time for two more questions, David has indicated. Jeanne you had a hand up
and then Jim.

SEPT: Well mine wasn’t a question it was a comment so people who have questions maybe
should go ahead.

PATTERSON: Mine is sort of a question and a comment. As we were discussing that our
resolution included a statement that the faculty would be educated on the use of the software.
And I really don’t see it in here, it might be implied.

WHEELER: Well that part has gone into the paragraph following that because of negotiations
that are currently, discussions that are underway with the College itself and as I said the College
has been discussing this matter and the Committee for Undergraduate Education in the College
expects to take action perhaps as soon as the end of this week. And it would be premature for me
to go into those discussions until after the College has acted.

PATTERSON: But the college isn’t the only place this could be used. It could be used in the
Business School, for example.

WHEELER: What we’re proposing to do is to form a joint committee with the College and with
other students.

GROS LOUIS: One more comment and we have to go to the next item.

LEVINSON: I just wanted to ask whether there is any discussion about cross-functionality with
Oncourse. As I understand it this is a service in which students upload their papers to a special
site which, by the way, one would appear to take care of the disclosure issue, but we’re also
piloting a new version of Oncourse. And I for one would be reluctant to be running a course
through Oncourse and have to have a system of submitting papers and checking papers through
some place outside Oncourse. I want to sort of explore the possibility of linking it through

WHEELER: Let me ask David to respond to that because David did speak a bit to that last
week. David could you respond again please?

GOORDRUM: Yes and there’s a note about this on one of the handouts. In conversations with
Turnitin they are closely monitoring the progress of the Sakai project and arequite interested in
creating a link so that it could be integrated. They have done similar things before with
Blackboard and WebCT. I recently gave the President an update on some of the progress that
different institutions who are moving forward with Sakai. So, I think it’s a matter of timing and
if I had to guess I would say its 12 months away but I think it’s a common goal.



GROS LOUIS: I think we have to move on to the next item. Thank you, Bill. Next is the first
reading of the Code of Students Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct. Mary Popp deserves
some kind of pardon for the year that she’s worked on this. A sainthood?

POPP: There are many other people who have worked a whole lot on this for many years and
hopefully we will come to fruition this year. I’m pleased that we have several people here who
can actually answer real questions and you did mention that Pam Freeman was here and Dean
McKaig is also here and I think I saw Bruce Jacobs in the corner too so they may be able to help
us answer questions. Robert Yost from IUPUI and I are the co-chairs at the University Faculty
Council Student Affairs Committee and I’m also part of the Bloomington Student Affairs
Committee. What we are here to talk about today is the new student code and to gather your
ideas as we work on the revision to take back to you for a vote March 1st and to the UFC on
March the 8th. So that’s where we’re coming from.

I want to start just with a little bit of background for those of you who have not heard about this
ad nauseam and if the rest of you will bear with me I appreciate it. The members of the group
who are working on this code include the University Faculty Council Student Affairs Committee
with some representatives from Bloomington, representatives of student groups and student
affairs offices from around the university. And all the people who are working on that have
really done a tremendous amount of work whether or not they could come to all meetings they
sent email and have helped us to do a great deal of the work on this. The University Faculty
Council last year charged the Student Affairs Committee with rewriting, shortening and
simplifying the code. The code you have right now with all its appendices is somewhere around
90 printed pages, so its quite a lot. It’s now down to 14 type written pages and as I said earlier
the Board of Trustees has asked us to make this a shorter code. The code itself I need to remind
you serves all IU campuses except Fort Wayne and as a result the code needs to apply in a
variety of different situations which is why you see some of the wording as it exists. One of the
reasons that the code had gotten so large was that it needed to include a variety of procedures for
its implementation on all of those different campuses. All of these procedures are removed from
the code and the procedures on implementing the code are actually going to be separated out by
campus, each campus will create its own procedures, and if you think this is over with after we
vote on it, guess again, we will be back with procedures before the end of the year. So this is
where we are going and what’s going on.

You have in front of you a code that is dated January 24th. Since that time it has been to the
University Faculty Council and a number of other councils on a variety of campuses. We’ve
gotten lots and lots of information. And I’m coming back to you for some more information
today because we are in the process of coming up with a second draft. What you have in front of
you are two different documents, one is the revision of the code and the second is a set of
guidelines and procedures that the Board of Trustees will approve and of course all the councils
will approve before that to guide the creation of procedures for how we implement the code on
various campuses. So those are the two documents in front of you. As I said we have received a
whole lot of things, this is my list of all the comments I have received so far. It’s 7 type-written
pages in 10 point type so there is more I’m sure to come. And there are a couple of things that I
want to particularly bring out this afternoon that have been either in the papers or that some of
you have brought up and I wanted to particularly be sure to mention that to you.

The very first thing is line 35 it is the section on part 1 student rights, section A and section B are
being combined under the heading for section B, this is something that we have heard a number
of times and the UFC thought it would be a good idea. The second issue that came up and has
come up in the meeting today is the information about the Academic Bill of Rights that is in the
legislature right now. There are several sections in this code that will deal with some of those
issues in terms of rights and in terms of responsibilities. One of the things that we have tried to
do is to look at our language, to make sure that it talks about behavior so you will see in line 68
and 75 that instead of “sensitive to” which is what is there right now we will talk about “respect”
because respect is a behavior, and respectful behavior is something that we can actually see.

There has been some question about the section on amorous relationships among faculty and
students. And we have now received a strong request from the Office of the Dean for Women’s
Affairs to keep this section in. So we want to think a little bit about where we are going with it.

Finally, the members of the Bloomington Faculty Council have asked the committee to
incorporate the items for off-campus behavior that begin on line 500 toward the end of the code
itself as examples in the information above it where we talk about what our goals are. So that is
just an overview very fast as fast as I can talk about where we’ve been, where we are going, and
now we want to hear from you and I’m very grateful to all the people who came who can answer
questions and there are a few people in this room who are also part of the process so I hope they
will help answer questions as well.

DALEKE: Peggy?

INTONS-PETERSON: Mary, when you talked about the Women’s Affairs? I didn’t catch the

POPP: It is Line 77-81.

DALEKE: Elizabeth?

JOHNSON: At last week’s meeting there was a question about lines 178 and 179 on the
“recognized canons for responsible journalism” what did you decide to do with that?

POPP: We haven’t yet responded to that, Herb would you like to talk about that it was your

TERRY: Well I think the main suggestion was that I haven’t the slightest clue; this is my field
and Amy’s here, and I don’t either of us have any idea of what the “recognized standards of
responsible journalism” might be.

NASH: It will be reported in tomorrow’s paper.

TERRY: But furthermore even if we agreed what they are I don’t think its something the
government should enforce, and for this purpose we’re the government. And so my advice would
be since we don’t know what it is then it would be unconstitutional for the government to do it
even if we knew what it was, we probably shouldn’t do it.

DALEKE: Craig?

BRADLEY: Looking at the very last page of this where you try to do a catch-all on other
personal misconduct, speaking as a criminal lawyer, former criminal lawyer, this section is kind
of a mess. It lists a few crimes, it doesn’t list some others, murder for example apparently does
not violate university policy as this is written. I would suggest that you just put a catch-all
provision there that says any violation of criminal law and not try to think of a few.

Also hazing is mentioned but there is no harassment, it says as defined in this code, but hazing
apparently is not defined. One person’s hazing is another person’s good old time at the fraternity,
so I think you are going to need to think more carefully about what exactly hazing amounts to

and define that. Most of these others though could simply be wrapped up in the phrase any
violation of criminal law.


TERRY: I’ve had throughout a concern with sections on this that probably many of the other
campuses won’t understand or won’t care about in the sense that only Bloomington and
Indianapolis at this point run any substantial kind of on-campus residential system. So at the
UFC at least it will be a matter of educating them as to why it matters at all. But the sections that
have concerned me have been the ways in which the revised code treats alcoholic beverages and
possession on campus. And I have been talking with people from RPS and elsewhere, I have
actually written, if you want to send it around Kelly you can, a suggestion as to a way to amend
this—we shouldn’t debate it today but I will explain what I would like to do and we can come
back to it the next time. Basically, and Ken is gone unfortunately, my proposal would among
other things turned the chancellor into the “booze-czar” of the campus.

GINGER: That’s why he left! [Laughter]

TERRY: In light of, in part, the fact that this has to work at all campuses—and who knows the
regional campuses may at some point create residential systems—one thing I think will be
desirable would be to switch much of the decision making about the alcohol policies from the
Dean of Students to the Chancellor. Every campus has a Chancellor. In addition, this is a very
important and complex decision. These decisions affect the interest of the students, they affect
the interests of faculty, they affect the budgets and things like Residential Programs and
Services, they are the kinds of campus-wide issues that I hope the chancellor would be involved.
So one thing that this proposes is to transfer the decision making about many of the details of
when alcoholic beverage possession or use might be allowed in a student residences from the
dean of students to the campus chancellor of each campus.

The second thing it tries to do is to simplify still further what the committee was trying to do. So
what I propose is we basically declare Indiana University and its property an alcohol free zone
except as basically the campus chancellor, booze-czar, may decide, subject to certain guidance.

SLATTERY: I thought we were trying to keep Ken around for another year. [Laughter]

TERRY: There are several things the chancellor can approve and certain things he can’t. What I
have learned relatively recently actually is that we here on this campus under temporary
provisions allowed apparently some years ago by the Trustees operate university residences,
Residential Programs and Services runs residential services excluding freshmen in which over 21
year students are allowed possession and use of alcohol and actually that seems to work
reasonably well. Our alcohol problems mostly arise from freshman dorms. So what I tried to
write here is something that would institutionalize what I believe RPS is already doing which is
that under certain carefully controlled circumstances where you have a residence hall including
students who are 21 and over the use and possession of alcoholic beverages can be allowed. One
thing that distinguishes the RPS system is there is supervision in those residences, in residences
including freshman you have RAs. In these other residences you don’t exactly have RAs but you

have other employees of RPS that to some extent run some program on the use of alcohol in
these residences where it is permitted. So what I tried to do is draft something that permits that
and extends it. If a fraternity or sorority wishes to follow that model and employ a university
employee to live in their residence and provide the same kind of supervision which is provided in
the RPS residences then what I have here will prevent [permit] a fraternity or sorority to do that
as well.

Let me explain that my involvement in this is that I have been, for years, a member of either the
Hearing Commissions or Student Conduct Code Review Board. Most of those cases involve
freshmen; most of those cases involve alcohol. We don’t see very many cases coming out of the
upper class residences. We would see them in fraternities except the route through which those
go is a little different. I think we have an alcohol problem on this campus and simply opening the
door wide and putting it in the hands of the Dean of Students because of the many constituencies
involved is not the way to go. But if we were to institutionalize what, in many ways, we already
are doing in some of our on-campus residences and if we were to extend the same model to the
fraternities and sororities—assuming they want to do it there was a story in this morning’s paper
explaining that the Risk Management people from these fraternities and sororities are telling
them to end alcohol use. I think this will be a useful reform.

The other changes that I made in here are to try and write a code that is evergreen. I happen to
come from an era, some of you may remember it when a number of states reduced the drinking
age from 21 to 18 and then changed it back. What I have put in here is that whatever the age is
under Indiana law that’s the one that we will follow that we aren’t constantly having to back
come to revise this should Indiana change its drinking law to 18 or 25 or something like that. I
hope you will take a look at this, I hope that people from Dean of Students Office and
Residential Programs and Services will comment on whether it proves to be a good idea. By the
way I have also put the chancellor in charge of the use of alcoholic beverages in areas accessible
to the public such as parking lots. Nothing much under the current version would have allowed
what goes on outside during our football games, assuming people go to the football games. For
what it’s worth here’s an alternative suggestion.

GROS LOUIS: Thank you, Herb.

[End of Tape 1, Side B, some conversation lost]

CHASTAIN: …changes in this code, because one of the things it does express, is it’s outlining
things for students so they understand them. I think that’s the number one thing that has been
talked about when revising this code is making sure students are actually reading this. I
remember when I was a freshman they give you the little green book, this is what it can do, but
everybody sort of throws it away and grabs all the other books. So one of the things we have
done is made this code definitely shorter and revised things in it. With the comment with the
Dean of Students just sort of since it’s out there, I do feel that its appropriate that the Dean of
Students, that this is reported to him because with our experience the Dean Students is who we
go to as students. I know the chancellor is a very busy man, as we all know, but I feel like this
would be appropriate for the Dean of Students position considering we are talking about students

here. So that was just something that I would like to outline but I also would like to thank the
committee that is revising it because they are doing a wonderful job.

MILLER: In light of the discussion we had just a few moments ago regarding plagiarism I think
my main problem with this document right now actually falls in this, on page 8 in the section line
306 section on plagiarism. We had the testimony of our English instructor who said that he really
wasn’t interested in paraphrasing, you know that that really didn’t mean much to him, he was
really interested in the kind of the direct mass copying of stuff. In SPEA I sit on a committee in
SPEA where we review some of these cases and I would say that one of the main problems that
we have there is really the difference between paraphrasing and copying. Somehow I just think it
might be useful to separate these two things as points in this list of activities. One of the things
that would accomplish is that it would allow us as faculty to think about these two things as
being different. It was pretty clear that the English instructor did think about them as being
different but the code really doesn’t seem to differentiate between them. It seems to me that it
might be useful for us to differentiate between the kind of mass copying from inappropriate
paraphrasing. You know this idea about “unless the information is common knowledge” what
does that mean? I think it is a very fuzzy area and we should recognize that.


KRAVCHUK: I wonder if that isn’t really covered in the first sentence with the phrase “with
appropriate acknowledgment?” That would cover both paraphrasing and outright lifting of text
without attribution.

MILLER: Well this says I don’t have to attribute it if it’s common knowledge. So it is putting
me in the position where I have to make a judgment. What does it mean for something to be
common knowledge? I read it in the newspaper somewhere is that common knowledge?

KRAVCHUK: Believe it or not I had an editor of a journal who was going to take one of my
articles asking me to cite the Ukrainian 1994 election to be sure that I could prove that it was
actually held in July of 1994 and I thought it was common knowledge. And she agreed after
thinking about it.

SEPT: Did she still make you do it?

GROS LOUIS: Richard?

NASH: It must be the influence of the recent holiday but I want to speak however irrationally to
line 78. I understand the opinion of the Office of Women’s Affairs; I’d like to be able to vote in
favor of a document like this and to do so honestly and frankly I couldn’t with these lines in here.
It’s possible that I’m the only person in this room, though I doubt it, who can think of at least one
couple that I respect deeply, admire greatly, who celebrated their silver wedding anniversary a
few years ago and who fell in love when one was a faculty and one was a graduate student. The
language that says “any and all” about amorous relationships takes it further than I can go. I kind
of think that we shouldn’t be, we should try to do, we should try to form useful policy especially
about matters of respect and dignity—that I think we have a responsibility to do. I don’t think we

should try to craft policy about love. I don’t think we are well suited to that task and the language
in these lines, while I understand the motive behind them seems to me wrong. So I submit that


A. MILLER: Just to respond to that. I think there is an important qualification which is the
phrase that the faculty member has a professional responsibility for the students so it seems to
me to be a less blanket sort of attempt to legislate the heart, by giving, I think a very, I mean I
think this is where it does, maybe one could argue that it doesn’t fall under the universities
business. And that seems to me to be significant for a number of reasons one of which might be a
situation where the faculty will be the most logical to write to a letter of recommendation for a
student and if that’s in any way compromised. And we could be talking about wait until the end
of the semester but I think where we have a situation or situations where faculty are directly
involved in either evaluating or recommending, decisions like that, that it does alter the
landscape tremendously. So I would just point out that there is some very strong clarifying
language there and in the absence of that then we will have a very different rule or policy.


DAVILA: Because this would include also directing dissertations and all, it’s a question of just
good common sense. It not only might cause favoritism of one sort or another but its also unfair
to the others that are involved at least in the way they perceive how they might be graded in the
seminar or what not. I think we’ve often heard that at minimum people should wait until after
the end of the semester, as you say Alyce. But even then it’s kind of funny because you can still
wink at someone or whatever and say wait until after the semester. Hold your horses or
something like that. But I think this is a matter of weighing and considering what might be, what
we used to call, moral in terms of the community itself and others involved.


INTONS-PETERSON: Well I agree with everything that’s been said. But I’m not quite sure
about your statements, however. I would see it not only in terms of the very strong statement that
was here that I think is extremely important as Alyce has pointed out, and that is if there is any
professional responsibility for the student but there are power relationships too. Those power
relationships can be very important not only to the people who are involved but also to others as
you say, who may feel that there is favoritism, that they are not getting the attention that they
should have because the teacher is spending time with another person. So it’s sort of logical I
think to have this in here. And it’s particularly important for students, graduate students who are
just coming out of undergraduate school where some of the activities that were just part of the
undergraduate culture are less appropriate when they have assumed the position of responsibility
over the grades and so forth of other students, its not just faculty we are talking about, so I think
its important to keep this in.

DAVILA: On the other hand I think we also should keep in mind mores and academic behaviors
is seen more differently in terms of questions of nepotism and all for new graduate students who

ordinarily couldn’t have couples teaching in the same department or whatever. You could make
distinctions well they met in the department so there is nothing wrong with that but you could
quite often, and it was just understood it wasn’t necessarily legally binding or anything. But I
think nowadays we are much more flexible and understanding about all kinds of different
behavior that are affairs of the heart. So to me its just that the times are changing we need to
keep in mind to a certain extent—but you right about power relations and if you like, injustices
that situations like this would create to the other people that are on the sidelines.

GROS LOUIS: Bob do you want to make this the last comment so that Roger can give his
report? Bob?

KRAVCHUK: Thank you, Ken. This is a knife that cuts in both directions and I think a faculty
member, as colleagues we owe it to one another, to remind each other at times of perhaps
momentary weakness that, you know you are really taking a major risk when you get involved
with a student and you really are well-advised to think carefully and if possible wait. It makes
all the sense in the world. It takes a lot of problems off your shoulders.

GROS LOUIS: If there are further comments please send them along to Mary. This will be
coming back.

POPP: Bradley will be bringing it back on March 1st so he’ll be happy to have comments.

DAVILA: Is this language that we debated about a little bit coming out of women’s affairs, is
this in the best of all possible worlds, is this a language that we can abide by at least
provisionally or not, so we don’t just leave it as a nice discussion.

HAMBURGER: It depends on your heart.

DAVILA: It depends on your heart, especially on Valentine’s Day. But I think it is good, I think
this phrase is general enough so that it is subject to interpretation which I always feel is the better
if you like of the directions we should go.

GROS LOUIS: Ok thank you, Mary.


GROS LOUIS: Roger has been waiting patiently for the Conflict of Interest Committee Annual
Report. I present to you Roger Dworkin. Ann Gellis is also here.

DWORKIN: Thank you, Ken. It’s been good to be here, its been a long time since I’ve darkened
these doors and they were probably better off without me. Ann Gellis is also here so if you have
questions she’s probably more likely to know the answers than I am. The Bloomington Conflict
of Interest Policy grows out of a federal requirement for avoiding conflicts of interest in federally
funded research. At IU we have gone farther than the federal government requires. Pursuant to

Trustees policy that was adopted in the year 2000, we seek to avoid conflict of interests in all
research, whether its externally funded or not.

We have also been involved with potential conflicts of interest in teaching. Although I think that
seems quite odd in a policy that is administered by the office of the Vice President for Research.
It is possible that there will be revision of the policies. Currently we here on the campus are
awaiting UFC action regarding a policy on Conflicts of Commitment and conflicts of interest
with regard to teaching so that ultimately one entire package can be presented to the Trustees. So
it’s too early to know what’s actually going to happen. The primary method that we use for
ferreting out Conflicts of Interest is I think one that’s familiar to all of you and that is the annual
reporting form which every tenure-track faculty member as well as anybody else who does
research who’s employed on the campus has to file. Largely I think through the work of Beth
Cate, the forms have been made incredibly user friendly and easy to file so for most people I
think filing the form takes less than five minutes, probably for most people less than three
minutes. Of course we can’t rely exclusively on self reporting despite the fact that the Internal
Revenue Service does and so the department heads and the deans, people who are close to the
areas of individual faculty members and who know more than any of us on the committee or in
the central administration can know, have to sign off, have to agree or raise questions about
whether one of their colleagues does in fact have a conflict of interest.

It turns out that the news is good. There are relatively few Conflicts of Interest on the campus.
For example in 2004 we received 2209 returned forms of which 84 persons indicated that
perhaps they thought themselves that they had a conflict of interest. Most of those conflicts upon
investigation turned out not to be conflicts or conflicts that nothing needed to be done about, so
that in reality for the whole campus as far as we know, there are only 17 cases of Conflicts of
Interest to be dealt with. When we do discover a conflict, the committee operates with two goals
in mind; one is of course to maintain the highest level of integrity in the performance of the
university faculty and secondly we want to do that without unduly hindering the efforts of
members of the faculty and members of the university community in general to contribute to
economic development and without unduly restricting Indiana University’s ability to attract and
retain top faculty.

In that regard, we try very hard to be helpful rather than punitive. We try whenever possible to
manage conflicts. In theory of course it is possible that we could have a conflict that could not be
managed. We have the power to order persons to divest themselves and to get out of conflict
situations and theoretically if a person where to refuse to do that, the person could be reported for
potential discipline, but that’s never happened. At least it’s never happened yet. So far it has
always been possible to manage conflicts.

At present I said that there are 17 instances; we have 11 management plans in place and six more
that are in the process of being developed. It’s hard to say too much about the management plans
because of course they differ from case to case but certain things are common to them. First we
insist always on full disclosure. So that that means if a person has a conflict, that is to say for
example a person is receiving financial support from a company that is in the area of the person’s
research so that some question could conceivably arise about whether the research was biased,
there must always be disclosure to any publication, to the publishers of any publications that the

person would offer. Similarly there has to be disclosure in all presentations that are made. There
has to be disclosure to students who might be involved and there has to be disclosure to all
external sponsors of the person’s work and to any potential external sponsors. The second thing
that is routinely included if there’s any conceivable way that it could be relevant is that we
always build in protection for students; these tend most often to be graduate students so that
there’s no sense in which a graduate student can ever feel that he or she is being coerced to
participate in work that is essentially the private work or the ruminative work, remunerated work
of a faculty member.

And then, the third thing is that of course we’re desperately concerned to make sure that all
research that’s done here on the campus or in the name of Indiana University is objective. The
committee, made up of 11 folks from around the university does not begin to have the expertise
to evaluate all of the research that’s done on the campus, even if we had the time to do that. And
so the management plans routinely include a mechanism to verify the objectivity of research
always using experts from within or outside of the faculty member’s unit. As I say, so far this
seems to be working well. The committee is a new committee. I’m the first chair, I think it’s fair
to say that we’re still feeling our way but all this seems to be working reasonably well and I
don’t think that we have any terrible problems that I know of. If you have questions I’m glad to
try to answer them and Ann who knows much more than I do has told me that she’d be glad to
try to answer them too.

GROS LOUIS: Thank you, Roger. Are there questions?

MELAMED: This is something I’ve wondered about the committee’s work and the university’s
rules about conflicts that are financial or that are research-oriented are very clear, but I saw a
couple of situations develop not too long ago that made me wonder whether we’ve got any stated
policy and what the expectations are about managing conflicts of interest in administrative work
and collegial work. And the situations involve circumstances in which members of the faculty
were put in positions of judging or evaluating students and faculty, a couple of different
situations in which to a reasonable observer you might raise the question of whether they had a
conflict of interest. I won’t trouble you with the details of it because I’m looking to see what
would happen if somebody raised that issue and said “she’s not appropriate to be put in that
particular position because of that conflict”, what would happen if you did that? Is there anything
in our statement of expectations of ethical behavior and conflict of interest?

DWORKIN: As far as I know that’s not within the jurisdiction of what we now call conflict of
interest. This is basically a research policy. I understand what you mean, what if somebody is on
the Tenure Committee and their research, they are a research entity of somebody else--

MELAMED: There are infinitive questions of judgment about what’s just difference of--
There are some situations I think in which you could say that there’s too much appearance here
of lack of impartiality. I put it out there then as an issue I guess I was surprised not to see
addressed in this given how thorough and how useful these processes are.


DALEKE: In fact that’s part of the policy that’s being written at the UFC. So we currently have
an Interim Financial Conflict of Interest in Research policy, we are in the process of revising the
Conflict of Commitment Policy, and there has been an interest in, although I don’t think it’s been
written yet, an interest in writing a policy that would be a Financial Conflict of Interest in
Teaching and Service.

MELAMED: Financial?

DALEKE: Financial yes and I’m not sure whether that would address what you’re talking about
but it was raised last year in some of the comments that we heard.

GELLIS: I think this is something that the general sort of Code of Ethics for academics and I’m
not sure whether our Academic Handbook says specifically. I know in the Research Misconduct
area in here, collaborative vision for people to have to disclose any conflict. We would certainly
do that in the Human Subjects area as well. But I don’t think what they’re working up at the UFC
covers what was generally spoken about.

MELAMED: The university hasn’t been squeamish about saying here’s what we think is
appropriate and ethical behavior in some areas maybe we shouldn’t be squeamish about it in
other areas that are important.

GROS LOUIS: Other questions?

DWORKIN: There are certain advantages at coming near dinner time.

GROS LOUIS: Do you remember the mandatory adjournment time?



GROS LOUIS: I think we should leave.

WHEELER: One minute.

GROS LOUIS: One minute?

WHEELER: One minute.

GROS LOUIS: One minute!

WHEELER: We’ve heard that the university is currently in the silent phase of its capital
campaign and so I’m here to tell you that we’re currently in the silent phase of general education.
And you will be, the UFC, our Educational Policies Committee has been discussing general
education for past year and a half. Of course the campus has been discussing it for many years

before that. The UFC-EPC has been very seriously discussing this issue this year as part of the
charge from the President that the faculty should discuss the issue of general education and
attempt to come up with some system wide statement on this. The UFC-EPC we think has made
considerable progress on this and we have a draft which is in the silent pre-release phase and we
will be giving you access perhaps as early as this evening to one of the Oncourse CL sites so that
you can see the current draft as it exists. And if you would have a chance to look at that and send
us any comments on it we would appreciate receiving that. The UFC-EPC will be meeting again
on this issue again next Tuesday with hopes that we might have a document that we’re ready to
send out for open discussion. So we’re hoping that within the next two weeks we will move from
the silent phase to the open phase but we would appreciate your comments before we reach that
point. So if you check your Oncourse listings tomorrow, then you’ll see a link that will-- I guess
it will actually, we’ll be putting it actually in one you already have the link to. There is a, all of
you currently have access to it, the site we’re calling the BFC-EPC documents site. It was a site
where you found the things for the There will be material on general education
there then by tomorrow. If you have a chance to look at that before this weekend and see
anything that you would like to comment on, I would appreciate receiving that by next Monday.
Thank you.

GROS LOUIS: Thanks, Bill. We’ve reached the mandatory adjournment time, meeting is

Meeting adjourned at 5:35 pm.


To top