Commission will reconvene, reconsider proposed 1997-98 academic calendar

By SUE WUETCHER
News Services Associate Director

Many faculty members at the meeting complained that the proposal to start the spring semester on Jan. 12, 1998, about a week earlier than normal, would reduce what they consider a key block of time for productive research.

"It is of real concern, this issue of not having enough time in the break," said William Miller, professor of stomatology. He noted the issue is something the dental school has had to deal with for years since it begins classes shortly after New Year's.

"That has screwed up, to put it bluntly, a lot of academic issues and potential development of new ideas in that interim between the semesters," he said. "The effect is to suppress scholarship during that periodŠI would strongly urge against contracting that space because it severely impacts on scholarship."

Robert L. Palmer, vice president for student affairs and chair of the Calendar Commission, noted that although there are several faculty members on the commission, no one had strongly objected to the earlier starting time.

He said the reason for moving up the start of the semester, which would set commencement weekend from May 8-10, is to leave more time for summer sessions run by Millard Fillmore College.

He denied a claim by Miller that the semester was moved up to accommodate a fund-raising event in the spring. He said there has been "no pressure from the president's office or otherwise" to end the semester early. "It was suggested (as something) to consider. There were no marching orders given."

In light of the objections raised at the meeting, Palmer said he will reconvene the commission to reconsider the proposed 1997-98 academic calendar.

He noted that the Calendar Commission does not set the calendar, but sends a recommendation to the president, who makes the final decision.

He pointed out that he has no preconceived notion about what the calendar should look like. "I'm a convener; I've got to facilitate moving that (the process leading to a recommendation), that's why we have broad-based consultation," he said.

"What troubles me, is at this point, when we're trying to put a calendar to bed for next year for a whole variety of reasons, that after months and months and months of discussion, this item comes up as a major issue."

In other business, the FSEC asked its Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility to examine the issue of consensual relations between students and faculty and report to the FSEC whether a formal university policy is needed, and if so, to develop a policy.

Miller, who told the committee that he married one of his students, said he did not believe a formal university statement was necessary in the case of two consenting adults, as long as there was no interference with the academic progress of the student. "How you meet is beside the point. If it interferes with the academic thing, yes there is the concern. It's the academic issue, not the personal relationship, that is of concern," he said.

But Jack Meacham, professor of psychology, pointed out that a relationship that may start as consensual may not continue as such. "What appears consensual at one point in time, sometimes appears, in retrospect, not to have been consensual; either party might change their views on this matter. I think it's absolutely essential we have such a policy in writing." Margaret Acara, professor of pharmacology and toxicology, agreed. "This needs to be considered. Yes, sometimes it works fine, and a lot of times it doesn't."

The FSEC also:

· Heard a brief presentation on a request for research proposals for public-service research projects by John Sheffer, interim vice president for public service and urban affairs. Proposals, which could be funded at up to $10,000, are due Nov. 1.

· Sent to the full Faculty Senate, with recommendation for approval, the university's proposed recycling policy, whose objective is to achieve a minimum level of 50 percent recycling by 1997.