MARIETTA COLLEGE FACULTY MEETING
February 10, 2003
MINUTES (approved 4/7/03)

A meeting of the Marietta College faculty convened at 5:00 p.m. February10, 2003, in the Selby Science Center, room 101. Dr. Sidney Potash, Chair of the Faculty, presided.

1. Announcement
Accreditation. Prof. Freeman reported that work on the re- accreditation process had started. The actual writing of the self- study would start in the Fall of 2003 and five sub- committees had been established with Drs. Chase, Miller, Perruci, Sibicky and R. Walker as chairs. Prof. Freeman asked for the support of the faculty for a process that aimed at wide campus input while ensuring each individual's workload was manageable.

2. Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of January 27, 2003 were approved as submitted.

3. Academic Standing Committee
Discussion continued on the motion placed before the faculty at the January 27 meeting.

Prof. Lazorik proposed a motion

That the faculty refer the proposal to the Campus Life/Athletic Committee for examination and that the committee report back to the faculty by April.

The motion was seconded. Prof. Lazorik pointed out that the committee had an advisory role in all student non-academic activities on the campus and had not been consulted on the proposal. The Provost acknowledged that the intent was to obtain time to seek further input from the student perspective but expressed herself against the motion.

The question was called and a show of hands showed that the motion failed: Yes 18, No 30.

Prof. F. MacHaffie proposed a substitute motion,

That the Faculty of Marietta College amend the Policy on Undergraduate Academic Warning, Probation, Dismissal to read that "A student on academic probation may enroll in no more than 13 hours each semester."

The motion was seconded. A document with rationale for the motion had been distributed prior to the meeting and is attached as Exhibit A (pink)

Dr. DeWine proposed an amendment to the main motion,

Implementation of restrictions would occur at the end of the spring semester for first year students. First year students who are placed on probation at the end of spring semester would also be placed on co-curricular restrictions. Each semester after that, co-curricular restrictions would occur following a semester in which the student was placed on academic probation.

Students would also be restricted to enrolling in no more than 14 credit hours of classes while they were on academic probation.

The amendment was seconded and Dr. DeWine distributed a rationale and a copy is attached as Exhibit B (green). (An electronic version had been distributed prior to the meeting.) Dr. DeWine characterized her amendment as a compromise and viewed it as an edging up of academic standards. Discussion ensued on both the amendment and the substitute motion. Prof. Lazorik, speaking for her department, said that the department appreciated the attempt at reaching a compromise but remained committed to the current policy. Among the issues raised: Why 14 hours? - to allow a student to take two lab science courses. What did co-curricular mean? Inter-varsity? Co-curricular events that carry academic credit? - the motion defined co-curricular events specifically and more broadly than either of the questions implied, and more broadly than the College Catalog specified. Could an athletic coach be on an Early Intervention Alert Team? - Yes. While students could not be officers of an organization, they could be members? - Yes.

The question was called and a show of hands indicated almost unanimous support for the amendment.

Discussion continued on the amended main motion and the substitute motion. The question was called on the substitute motion a ballot vote was taken. Prior to the vote the chair accepted two points of order: "Who was eligible to vote?". The chair clarified the issue; and "Can anyone call for a secret ballot?" Yes.

The ballot showed that the substitute motion failed as a substitute for the amended motion: Yes 26, No 38, Abstained 3.

Discussion continued on the amended main motion. Among the issues raised were: The fact that a student can participate in a club as a member but not as an officer did not necessarily change how a student would spend his/her time. A student could still practice in athletics, but not play. The proposal would provide an incentive to avoid going on probation. The proposal would mean that the students representing the College would be only those working toward a degree. The new Football Coach reported that at his previous college in Wisconsin, the requirement for athletes was a 2.00 grade point average by the junior year. The proposal takes something away and does not guarantee the necessary support. Co-curricular activities are a privilege that has to be earned. The proposal allows participation in a co-curricular activity if the activity is a requirement of a student's program. The process leading to the proposed change started in the First Year Task Force as an attempt to create an appropriate academic environment for first year students. Even though the amended proposal would not directly affect first year students, it would still provide an incentive.

The question was called. A ballot showed that the amended motion was passed: Yes 43, No 23, Abstain 1.

4. The meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m.


Fraser G. MacHaffie
Secretary of the Faculty

Exhibit A (pink): Memo, "Academic Probation Policy," 1/24/03
Exhibit B (green): Comprehensive proposal for ...

Dr. Scott
Dr. DeWine
Dr. Potash
Dawes Memorial Library.