Council Affirms Confidence in Academic Committee

Exclusion procedures to be considered by Joint Committee

The regulations and procedure for excluding students are to be referred to the Joint Committee of the Council, the Professorial Board and the Students' Association.

This decision was taken at the Council meeting on Monday 9 March. The Council, however, affirmed its confidence in the Academic Committee of the Professorial Board and described as "conscientious", its handling of appeals by Students against exclusion.

This affirmation, supported by Students' Association Representative, Denis Phelps, was passed unanimously.

The appeal procedure, as outlined by the Vice-Chancellor Dr D.B.C. Taylor, is that appeals, after being received and processed in the Registrar's Office, are considered by Deans of Faculties in early February.

Dr Taylor pointed out that there is provision for appeals to the University Council and that this has been so since 1964. The Council Meeting, attended by over 100 students, was informed by Bill Logan that the exclusion procedures adopted in 1970 involved hasty, callous and bureaucratic action by the Council Sub-Committee set up to review the work of the Academic Committee of the Professorial Board.

Mr Logan argued that only the University Council can allow appeals. He added, however, that he could see sound argument why the Academic Committee should decide on these matters.

According to the Pro-Chancellor, Mr K.B. O'Brien, the power of the Council to exclude students has been delegated to the Professorial Board. The role of the council sub-committee on which Mr Logan had sat was, he said, to ensure that the procedures adopted were satisfactory not to undertake a review of rejected appeals.

In a note to the Council, Mr. Logan had amplified his earlier allegation to the Students' Association that he "totally dissatisfied that the way in which the decisions were reached was valid". Commenting on the meeting of the sub-committee of Council which was set up to review the work of the Academic Committee in excluding students with records of academic failure, Mr Logan reported that; "No papers had been circulated to the members before the meeting. Members were at the meeting given two foolscap sheets of lists of names and recommendations".

"Details were given" he continued, "of only six of the forty-nine appellants and the Committee of Council decided that it agreed with the Academic Committee's decision in these six cases On the basis of this sample" it approved the whole report of the Academic Committee."

Describing the exclusion procedures, the convener of the Academic Committee, Professor S.N. Slater, said that of a total of 232 appeals against exclusion this year a total of 183 appeals had been upheld by Faculty Deans.

Professor Slater explained that, of the 49 students whose cases were referred to Deans to the Academic Committee, a further 18 were upheld. All students liable to exclusion were notified on their Examination Results Cards in 1969 that they could apply for a personal interview with their Head of Department or Faculty Dean. Students, Professor Slater said, generally avail themselves very fully of the chance to state their case in writing and all who requested interviews were granted them.

In reply, Mr Logan alleged that there was no procedure to ensure that all students appeal personally. He added that it would seem appropriate to obtain the expert opinion of say, a member of the Student Counselling Service before reviewing the cases of failed students.

Council members expressed some confusion about the procedures adopted in the exclusion process. While endorsing the work of the Academic Committee, the Council resolved that all students excluded after appeal for 1970 would be granted temporary re-enrolment pending a reconsideration of their appeals.

Students whose appeals were not upheld may now apply for personal interviews by the Academic Committee If the student chooses, the Committee will be augmented by two of the student representatives on the Professorial Board.

In preparing their cases excluded students may, in terms of the Council Motion, consult the Counselling Service.

Margaret Bryson, President of the Association, had this to say after the Council Meeting:

"For financial reasons and for the good of students not suited to university study, I recognise that some form of exclusion must operate The problem is to find the fairest way to perform the unpleasant task of giving people the axe.

"I think that the University has been very magnanimous in allowing back seven-eighths of the students appealing against exclusion. What shocked me was hearing that this seven-eighths had been readmitted-this statistic having been carefully hidden by Mr Logan in his rave at SRC. According to Mr Logan, the Academic Committee examined the cases of 50 students and readmitted 18. He didn't say that the Deans had already allowed 180 appeals.

"If the Council had not been so polite they would have administered a rebuke to Mr Logan in front of the 100 students present to hear his diatribe. Mind you, I think the procedure does need clarification. We may be readmitting too many students. I suspect this whole rumpus will at least cause the University Grants Committee to reconsider the matter and to demand tightening-up of exclusion requirements."

Professor I.D. Campbell, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, was the third member of the Council to sign the requisition for a special meeting.

We spoke to Professor Campbell on the morning of Monday, 9 March, to ask why he had requisitioned the meeting which was to be held in the afternoon.

Professor Campbell said that he felt that the whole question of the exclusion of students should be the subject of discussion at a special meeting. He believed that the Council sub-committee should have considered all cases and not merely considered a random sample. The calling of a special meeting was justified because, as the term has already started, urgent action should be taken if there is any possibility of any of the Academic Committee's recommendations on appeals being overturned.

Professor Campbell said that he had no reason to believe that the Academic Committee had been other than thorough and fair in its examination of the cases of excluded students. "In fact," he said, "the only specific cases of which I have any knowledge would incline me to the view that the Academic Committee was over-generous."

Professor Campbell said that, while he felt that the Council—through its sub-committee—should have considered all cases and not merely a random sample, he did not believe that the Council needed to review the decisions of the Academic Committee.

Gerard Curry, 1969 VUWSA President, gives his views on the exclusion affair:

"It's my impression that some students were looking for a fight just for the sake of it. It was unfortunate that the exclusion issue was chosen because the exclusion provisions—only having to pass two units in two years—are very liberal. The original regulations were brought into effect at a time when there was a higher proportion of part-time students than there are today. Also, the appeal provisions—where about 7 out of 8 students who make appeals are permitted to return to university—are very fair. This action has created a lot of damaging publicity and it's almost inevitable that the regulations will be tightened up after the Joint Committee has considered this matter. I think that there's scope for representation in this field but the way in which it was obtained demonstrated a complete lack of finesse. Representation could have been obtained by simple negotiations."

Bill Logan, the student representative on the Council who initiated the Special Meeting of Council on exclusions, said after the meeting:

"We got more or less what we wanted which was a review of the decisions made in 1970 and the right for students to be heard by the Committee which is coming to the decision. We got this improved consideration for the wrong reasons: we got it because the Council was scared rather than because the Council genuinely thought that there needs to be some procedure to stop the wrong people from being excluded."

The Vice-Chancellor, Dr D.B.C. Taylor, said after the Council meeting on 9 March that one or two points made at the Meeting should be made clear. "No letter was sent to students whose appeals were rejected by the Deans prior to the Academic Committee's consideration of individual cases" he said. Dr Taylor said that Bill Logan had been taken up on this point by the Pro-Chancellor, K.B. O'Brien, at the Meeting but that it had not been made sufficiently clear that no letter had in fact been sent.

Dr Taylor said that no change in principle in the exclusion procedures had been involved in the appointment of a special sub-committee of the Council to consider the recommendations of the Academic Committee. This had merely been done to ensure that the Academic Committee's decisions could be considered by the Council as soon as possible. Dr Taylor said that he felt it might surprise some students to know that the Council was aware of the need for urgency in the consideration of appeals but this was, in fact, the reason for the decision to establish a sub-committee.

He said he had complete faith in the way in which the Academic Committee had handled appeals and said that it seemed obvious that for the Council to hear all appeals was impractical.