Background notes on Exclusion

"A student who has not passed at least two units over the last two preceding years of his academic studies shall not be enrolled as a student nor sit examinations of this university except with the permission of the Council ... A person who, under these regulations, requires permission to enrol may in any year apply to the Registrar for such permission not later than 15 January in that year, enclosing with his application any information that he wishes to tender in support of his application." (University Calendar 1970 p.79)

The exclusion regulations are printed on the back of examination result notifications. Students who appeal (that is, who seek permission to enrol after exclusion) have their cases considered first by the Dean of Faculty concerned. The Deans allow a large number of cases. This year, nearly 80% of appeals were allowed. Senior academics have frequently expressed the view that if a student is sufficiently keen to continue his studies to make the effort appeal he should be given the chance to do so unless he is plainly incapable of completing a university course.

The Academic Committee, a sub-committee of the Professional Board, considers all cases where the Deans have not upheld the appeal. (". . . it should be remembered that an important function of the Academic Committee is to ensure that different faculties keep in step in the application of the exclusion rule"-from the Vice-Chancellor's memo for the members of the Council, dated 6 March, 1970) The Academic Committee allows further appeals. This year it upheld 18 of the 49 appeals referred to it by the Dean

The Council has always rubber-stamped the Academic Committee's decisions. That the Council has to consider the Committee's decisions on appeals at all arises from a provision in the Victoria University of Wellington Act 1961 which specifically draws the Council into the exclusion procedure. ("The Council shall have power to decide to decline to enrol any student at the University, or in any particular course or courses or classes in a particular subject or subjects. . . ."—section 24, sub-section (2). A number of specific grounds upon which students may be excluded follow; among them is paragraph (e) "Insufficient academic progress by the student after a reasonable trial at the University or at any other University . . .")

There is no reason whatsoever, of course, why the Council should not delegate its power to "decline to enrol any student at the University". The Council has, in fact, defined the broad criterion (two units in two years) for exclusion and has delegated to the Deans and the Academic Committee the power to set aside this requirement. Why the Council continues to review the decisions of the Academic Committee is not entirely clear. It is perfectly obvious that the Council's review is not directed towards reversing decesions of the Academic Committee to decline appeals. If the Council did uphold appeals against the recommendation of the Academic Committee it would, in effect, be itself waiving the regulation which it has defined.

It seems much more likely that the Council's review of the Academic Committee's decisions was originally intended to ensure that the Academic Committee and Deans were not too liberal in their consideration of appeals. This process has become a rubber stamping because the Council is satisfied that the Academic Committee is doing a good job, though individual members have qualms about its liberality.

This year, a subcommittee of Council was set up to review the decisions of the Academic Committee. In previous years the decisions of the Committee have been 'received' by the whole Council. The sub-committee was established in order that the rubber-stamping could take place in time to allow students whose appeals were upheld to be readmitted to the University as early as possible in the academic year. For reasons which are as yet completely unknown, the sub-committee took a sample of the appeals considered by the Academic Committee. They considered four cases of students whose appeals had been rejected and two cases where appeals had been upheld. In other words, they considered a sample of about one in eight students. On the basis of their consideration of this sample, the members of the sub-committee, with Logan dissenting, agreed that the decisions of the Academic Committee should be ratified.