Rev. 9-13-07





The eighth regular meeting of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, in

the Mendenhall Student Center, Great Room.


Agenda Item I.  Call to Order

Mark Taggart (Music), Chair of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.


Agenda Item II.  Approval of Minutes

The March 20, 2007, meeting minutes were approved as presented.


Agenda Item III.  Special Order of the Day


A.        Roll Call

Senators absent were: Professors Zoller (Art and Design), Fraley (Communication), Hodge (Education), Corbett (Geology), Cope (Faculty Assembly), and Provost Smith.


Alternates present were:  Professors Coonin for Winstead (Academic Library Services), Perry for Saidel (Anthropology), Ballard for Dosser (Child Development and Family Relations), Kerbs for Jones (Criminal Justice), Moll for Grymes (Music), and Omoruyi for Morris (Political Science).


B.        Announcements

1.         There was a moment of silence in recognition of those within our ECU Community who have passed away during this academic year.

2.         Faculty members were reminded that April 1 Chancellor Ballard will call for candidates for the prestigious 2007/2008 Oliver Max Gardner award.  A copy of the University’s nomination procedures is available at:


3.         A preliminary call for nominations for the Board of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Award, Alumni Award for Outstanding Teaching, and University Award for Outstanding Teaching will be distributed in May. Nomination materials will be due September 1 and portfolios due November 1. Information on the different award nominating procedures is available online at:

4.         Faculty interested in periodically receiving issues of The Chronicle of Higher Education are asked to call the Faculty Senate office at 328-6537 and place their name on a list for distribution. 

5.         There has been an editorial revision to Appendix D, Section IV.F. as follows:

“F.  Notification of Recommendations

The faculty member shall be informed of all recommendations at every level, beginning with the appropriate unit committee’s unit administrator's recommendation and continuing up to the level where the final decision is made.” 

6.         Information about the Research Start-up Funds Program was distributed to Senators and is available online at:


Chair Taggart said that, like all of you, he was stunned by the horrific events that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech University.  When such a tragedy happens, it is almost impossible to feel anything but overwhelming grief. In his message to the ECU community, our Chancellor reminded us that, even though no one is immune to violence or disaster, at least we can constantly “train, study, and prepare for the unexpected.”  Please keep our colleagues and their families at Virginia Tech in our thoughts and prayers.


Chair Taggart congratulated the ten recipients of the Scholar-Teacher Awards, who were honored in a celebration hosted by the Division of Academic Affairs on April 5.  Some of those recipients are in this very room.  Congratulations to Professors Patricia Anderson, Mary Ann Rose, Michael Harris, Hunt McKinnon, Scott Gordon, Mike Brown, John Bishop, Susan McCammon, Robert Carroll and Robert Alpers for your continued contributions to the ECU community.


Congratulations to everyone who contributed to the events in Research Week, which was hosted by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies. Congratulations to Dr. James McCubrey, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Brody School of Medicine, who received the University Lifetime Achievement award, as well as Derek Alderman, a professor of geography, and Reide Corbett, a professor of geology, each who received the Five-Year Achievement awards. As I listened as each researcher presented a seminar of their work, I was impressed by how their research can serve to better our lives, with Professor Alderman’s research on the significance behind historical monuments, Professor Corbett’s study of the effects of hurricanes on sediment deposits and the environment, and Dr McCubrey’s research on medical treatments for leukemia and breast cancer.  Congratulations to our distinguished colleagues!


Chair Taggart noted that a governing body only works when members of that body participate and represent others.  That has been the case with this year’s Senate, and we need to thank especially those Senators who are leaving after today’s meeting.  He then asked the body to take a moment to please join him in thanking these senators for their service.  Taggart then reminded the Senators of the upcoming Commencement Ceremonies on Saturday, May 5, 2007.   He stated that ECU was moving the graduation ceremony outdoors this year.  In honor of the 100th year after our founding, our graduates will be wearing purple robes.  He asked that faculty all do their part to make this year’s ceremony memorable for our graduates by having a big turnout from the faculty.  Let’s set a record for faculty participation in this historic event!


Agenda Item IV.   Unfinished Business

There was no unfinished business to come before the body at this time.

Agenda Item III.  Special Order of the Day


C.    Chancellor’s Report.

Chancellor Ballard reported on the Continuity of Instruction report submitted by a group led by Elmer Poe concerning contingency plans for a possible avian flu epidemic.  The report constitutes a possible blueprint to continue instruction if classes are not able to meet physically; in particular, options for internet-based teaching.


The Chancellor announced a planned visit by GA’s UNC Tomorrow group which is looking into, among other issues, how to deal with the expected influx of new students and a switch to a trimester system. We will have multiple chances for inputs over next year.


Chancellor Ballard also informed the faculty that a GA consulting group and UNC Vice President Martin are studying ways to improve student retention and graduation rates. He then commented on Legislators’ discussion of the possibility of cutting millions of dollars from the budget due to a perceived excess of middle management at the University, and efforts to educate them on the need of such personnel to deal with matters such as compliance with federal regulations.


The Chancellor then highlighted some of ECU’s recent accomplishments in community based academic medicine, noting that BSOM’s Physicians Practice Plan is successfully turning around its financial situation: $15 million dollars in savings and added revenue has been achieved, with hopes of doubling that amount. He affirmed that ECU’s status with the Board of Governors is improved and perhaps the best ever, especially with respect to our delivery of DE courses. He cited recognition by GA, the Board of Governors, and state legislators that we respond to state demands, and foresees the approval by our Board of Trustees of the overview of our Strategic Directions. He also called attention to achievements in faculty compensation toward our goal of attaining the 80th percentile in relation to our peer institutions, as well as continued improvements in infrastructure.

Chancellor Ballard then addressed priority challenges facing ECU: improving diversity in all areas, and finding revenue sources other than student tuition and state appropriations to deal with enrollment growth.


Schenarts (Medicine) asked if planning is underway to deal with campus safety issues such as a lockdown in case of a Virginia Tech-type incident, and if formal condolences had been sent to Virginia Tech. The Chancellor responded that he attended a meeting with representatives from many institutions concerning campus safety, and plans are under review by ECU and local officials to answer questions such as under what circumstances a lockdown would be necessary, how to rapidly communicate in a crisis situation, and how on-campus housing could deal with such threats. He added that he had sent condolences and an offer to assist in any way possible on behalf of the ECU community.


Long (History) asked the status is of the +/- grade resolution. Chancellor Ballard responded that the newly elected SGA officers will meet with Prof. Wendy Sharer, Chair of the Recruitment & Retention Committee, and Vice Chancellor of Students Marilyn Sheerer on Apr. 23rd, and that he believes a decision on the final details of the policy will be reached then.


Rigsby (Geology) stated that, last year, administrative raises were significantly higher than those of the faculty, and asked how administrative raises had been decided upon. The Chancellor replied that his approach was to give to Deans and Chairs the same size pool, which last year was 6.9%, and that that dollar amount was not to be exceeded. He also stated that he had discussed this issue with Provost Smith, and intends to do so with the Academic Council as well.


Tovey (English) inquired what kind of campus based tuition increase students are facing this year. Chancellor Ballard answered that the legislature assigned campuses a limit, but that limit depends on legislative support. Most years there is an increase of about 3.5% to get to 6.5% two-year total average, but that this year it would more likely be in the 1-2% range, as students given their fair share.


D.    Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report
Provost Smith was out of town attending a UNC Chief Academic Officers’ meeting. Discussion on a proposed draft Faculty Applicant Verification of Continued Interest and Fitness was postponed until a later date. 


E.  Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies’ Report

Vice Chancellor Mageean presented the Draft Division of Research and Graduate Studies Strategic Plant, which contains five core goals with specific sub-goals and cost estimates. In general, the goal is to double research productivity, which will need to be assessed employing a variety of metrics in different disciplines. She addressed the issues of start up funds, seed money, and awards, noting that there are many areas of need.  Other areas of emphasis are administrative infrastructure, new hires, and a planning efficiency & productivity study. This study would include the management of grant & grant applications and faculty recruitment. He noted a rate of research growth of 90% over the last year, and of 15% the year before. The study will also involve consultation with many groups, and a survey concerning such topics as teaching loads, tracks, cluster hiring or hiring teams to achieve critical mass in research, translation of applied research into economic growth, and creative works toward the objective of creating a  culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.


Sprague (Physics) asked: Where does an east campus science department fit in, regarding infrastructure needs? Vice Chancellor Mageean stated that a building to replace Howell is the top priority, with another science building hopefully to follow.


Wilson (Sociology) asked what lessons had been learned in our rush to create the new Coastal Institute? Vice Chancellor Mageean responded that the planning was not rushed, that the proposal had gone through fifteen iterations, and that since ECU is relatively new to the creation of centers there were unanticipated obstacles still under discussion. She also stated that such debate is healthy, and that from this experience future planning will hopefully go more smoothly.


Smith (Technology and Computer Science) inquired if goals for the increase in research are proportional for present and new faculty. The Vice Chancellor replied that there is a considerable amount of faculty turnover at present, and that new hires are made aware of developing research expectations.


Roberts (Philosophy) asked what the basis was for the goal of doubling the rate of peer-reviewed publications, since it is overwhelming the faculty and not the administration that will produce these publications. The Vice Chancellor answered by citing two year trends from 2005-06 showing an average of 3.9 grant proposals per recipient, and that for these there had already been a 2 to 1 return on the university’s investment. She stated that her philosophy is to set goals high to attain greater achievement.


Riley-Tillman (Psychology) voiced a concern that the emphasis on recruiting and initial support to hire more attractive candidates was not matched by an equivalent effort to retain present faculty, positing that it is cheaper to retain than to attract. He asked what efforts are underway to improve retention. Professor Mageean stated that GA in recent times had been very generous in providing funds for retention.


Abdel Raman (Medicine) inquired about ECU’s system for rewarding faculty, citing the fact that recent average raises for Deans and Chairs were higher than corresponding increases for faculty. Chancellor Ballard replied that a straight numerical comparison doesn’t consider the yearly contract length, and Vice Chancellor Mageean pointed out that one reason faculty enjoy a nine month contract is to spend the other three months going after external funds.


F.  Chair of the Faculty’s Report

Chair Taggart (Music) stated that a simple scan of the items appearing on the agenda will verify that ECU continues to grow and become more complex.  With this growth, there will be times when the traditional definitions of the elements of shared governance found in our Faculty Manual might need to be reexamined.  The development of our Interdisciplinary Institute of Coastal Science and Policy, and its current search for a director, is an example of our changing times.


Does the director of an interdisciplinary institute that promotes, develops, facilitates, coordinates, and supports interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary coastal research, teaching, and outreach programs fall into the category of “unit administrator”? Chair Taggart stated that he did not think so, partly because the mission of this institute is to encompass research and teaching that would involve several units.  If the director of such an institute defies typical classification, then what about the faculty engaged in scholarship in the Institute?  How is their research to be assessed, as they apply for promotion or tenure?


In the search for a director of the IISCP, many such questions arose.  We had to make corrections to the search process when we realized that this should be an Appendix L search, even though this administrator would not be fulfilling the functions of department chair, dean or vice chancellor.  Another issue is: who are the voting faculty for the purpose of choosing a search committee and for voting on the acceptability of the nominees for this position?  This is where we are right now with this search.


Chair Taggart stated that he believed that, after consultation with the Faculty Officers, other faculty and administration that have a stake in this institute that a solution is at hand.  I would like to recommend that, for this search, we be as inclusive as we possibly can.  We should follow the definitions found in Appendix L describing voting faculty whenever we can.  But we also must encompass and embrace all tenured and probationary term faculty who have been and will be involved in the scholarship of the institute.  We may need to take our recommendations to our Provost in order to provide a Faculty Manual interpretation for this search.  Then, we need to examine interdisciplinary studies, joint appointments, searches for institute directors, and so on, as they relate to our Faculty Manual, in hopes of providing guidance for future growth.  If some of the recommendations found in the draft of the strategic plan for the development of research and graduate studies come to fruition, we will need to be prepared for this.


G.  Faculty Assembly Delegate’s Report

Ken Wilson (Sociology) presented a report on the Faculty Assembly Meeting of March 23, 2007.  He reported that the GA possesses a detailed database down to the unit level of graduation rates, and is looking into drop policies and academic standards. He stated that enrollment increases in coming years are projected to be 60% minority. The need for background checks is also being discussed, and GA and the Faculty Assembly are lobbying hard for increased state support of graduate students.


Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) pointed out that the Board of Governors is pushing textbook rentals for large introductory courses, furthermore noting that by ordering texts early, professors can save students money.


Rigsby (Geology) asserted that data collection on graduation rates is reason for concern—especially in relation to post tenure review. She affirmed that one administrator asked her “how do I get rid of faculty who don’t pass enough students in basic courses”? Professor Wilson responded that the theory is not lower standards, but to bring students to higher levels of achievement.


H.  Question Period

Sprague (Physics) informed Mageean that his unit had been promised graduate student tuition remissions in support of the PhD in Biomedical Physics, and had in turn promised these remissions to

all of the students they recruited. Vice Chancellor Mageean stated that she had inherited many such guarantees from previous administrators, and had done her best to honor them as circumstances permitted, but that due to the growing number of PhD programs in the HCAS, and the fact that remissions from the State had remained flat, it is not always possible, and probably unwise to continue to make such promises.


She stated she will attempt to create competitive in-house remissions, university graduate fellowships, and find funds to pay for prospective students’ campus visits. She affirmed that increasing stipends to a minimum of $15,000 is a top priority, but that the present system of defining and granting assistantships is disorganized, and that getting external grants was the only long-term solution.


Dean Pellicane then added that we need to be creative, and to make expectations on all parts clear; he also observed that another adversity faced is that foreign students cannot gain in-state status. He informed the Senate that remissions from the state have been stagnant at 154 for the last eight years, but that ECU has recently added 10 new MA and 6 PhD programs, with 166 doctoral students on campus at last count. He noted we have created 60 in-state internal remissions from the assistantship money pool, and that Deans are free to decide the proportion of those available.


Brown (Psychology) asked Vice Chancellor Mageean if she could clarify who makes changes in policy concerning the Research and Creative Activity Grants. She responded that the monies come from her division, but that the Senate committee recommends all rules changes to the Senate. The committee makes its recommendations, but she tries to remain as “hands off” as possible. With respect to the recent change prohibiting new hires, who can also receive start-up funds from those monies, from also requesting grants, she stated that the committee was attempting to stop “double dipping” to keep funds available for people without other sources. She highlighted the need for such rules to be communicated to the ECU community, and that they can be revised by the appropriate Senate committee at any time.

Wilson (Sociology) asked Vice Chancellor Mageean if she had benchmarks for things other than grants. She replied that she is aware of the need for different benchmarks in different disciplines, but that the fundamental principle of accountability for results justifying the university’s investment would be the basis for all measures.


Rose (Nursing) asserted that the nursing program has 400 graduate students, yet the school has only seen 15 applications by a time by which they should be sending out acceptances. Dean Pellicane answered that progress has been made, that the Graduate School has caught up on information collection but not the processing of applications. He noted that they have hired 3 more staff members out of the Banner budget to catch up, and will soon have a system in place for secure fee collection, concluding that they can see the end but are not yet at the end of the problem. He urged program directors to contact them with specific inquiries.


Long (History) mentioned President Bowles’ goal of changing to trimesters by Fall of 2008 and inquired, now that it has become a part of the UNC Tomorrow policy study, could we still expect it to be in place by then. Chancellor Ballard replied that policy study’s report would not be finished for at least a year, so it doesn’t seem likely.


Brown (Education) observed that last fall Chancellor Ballard and President Bowles called for increased effort to recruit new students in high need professions such as teacher education and nursing, noting in particular the need to fill the approaching vacancies for 10,000 teaching positions across the state of North Carolina. She then asked Vice Chancellor Mageean if faculty who devote time to recruitment and administration of their programs receive rewards and recognition similar to those who have devoted time to securing external funding in the form of grants and contracts? Mageean responded that this should be the case, and that such recognition and rewards are done at the unit level.


Agenda Item V.  Report of Committees


A.  Academic Standards Committee

Linda Wolfe (Anthropology), Chair of the Academic Standards Committee, first presented the proposed Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior.  She noted that the reference to “WP or WF” in the new section should be changed to “drop”.  This was accepted as editorial. 


Rigsby (Geology) noted that the statement that reads: “The dean or dean’s designee will review the appeal and the documentation and can affirm, reverse or modify the decision made by the instructor and department chair” seems to imply that this can be done without consulting the instructor. Michael Brown (Psychology) affirmed that this was not the intention, to which Rigsby replied that the policy should then state that. She also inquired what would happen if a student had already used their three drops? Wolfe responded that it would not count against that limit.


Rigsby moved to add “will discuss the appeal with the faculty member” and Tovey (English) added “after discussion with student and instructor” so that the entire sentence in the 5th paragraph reads: “The dean or dean’s designee will review the appeal and the documentation, will discuss the appeal with the faculty member and, after discussion with the student and instructor, can affirm, reverse or modify the decision made by the instructor and department chair.”  The amendments were approved.


Niswander (Business) observed that the policy only provided students three days to make an appeal and the Dean three days to review appeal, which is very little time, and that faculty needed to be certain they are comfortable with that.


Long (History) asked what would happen if that does not take place. Niswander answered that, if there was no response to the appeal in the specified time frame, the student could conceivably take ECU to court.


Following discussion, the proposed Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior was approved as amended. RESOLUTION #07-13  (Once approved, this new policy will be added to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information, Section I.Y.)


The Faculty Senate also approved the addition of the proposed Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior into the official undergraduate catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations, immediately after the “Class Attendance and Participation Regulations” subsection.  RESOLUTION #07-14


Professor Wolfe then presented a Review of Procedures and Instruments for Peer Review of Teaching.

She observed that a review of the policy every three years is mandated. She said that Professor Dot Clayton gathered the data, which was placed on a website, and that the committee reviewed the information and did not see major problems. The committee did recommend that new chairs be informed of policy, and that new faculty be informed in their orientation. The report was accepted as presented.


Following that report, Professor Wolfe presented for information only the courses approved by the Committee for Foundation Credit.  Those included: (a) The following courses were passed to receive Social Science Foundation credit: POLS 3042, SOCI 3219, SOCI 3025, SOCI 4300, SOCI 4400;
(b) The following courses were passed to receive Math Foundation credit: MATH 2151, MATH 2152, MATH 2153; (c) The following courses were passed to receive Humanities credit: MRST 2400, MRST 2500, CLAS 2600, CLAS 3600, ENGL 3660, ENGL 3670, ENGL 4370, GRK 4001, GRK 4002.  There was no discussion on this report.


B.  Faculty Welfare Committee

David Lawrence (Geology), Chair of the Committee, presented a proposed revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI.I.I.2.a.(8) Reference Parking for Retired Faculty. Instead of the current text that reads: “8) Free campus parking decal, valid in all staff and University registered locations, with the exception of private parking lots.” The text should read:

“8)       Fully retired faculty may request a free B parking permit and may also park in spaces designated  "Retired Faculty." Faculty in phased retirement and retired faculty who are re-employed by the university may request a free B parking permit and may upgrade the B permit to an A permit (by paying the price difference between an A and a B permit) while bypassing the wait-list, but may not park in spaces designated "Retired Faculty.”


Professor Lawrence stated that there had been concern expressed by faculty that some might be bumped from A parking spaces if this policy was enacted and that therefore, after consultation with all concerned parties, it is recommended that retired faculty would receive free B parking stickers, and that Parking Services will monitor usage patterns to see if there were any negative effects caused by the new policy.


Tovey (English) asked him to confirm that they would also receive free shuttle service to and from the B spaces. Professor Lawrence responded that that will be the case.


Following discussion, the revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI.I.I.2.a.(8) in reference to parking privileges for retired faculty was approved as presented.  RESOLUTION 07-15


C.  Libraries Committee

Marianna Walker (Allied Health Sciences), Chair of the Committee, presented a review of both the Joyner Library and Laupus Library Operating Budgets.  There was no discussion.  Professor Walker then presented for information data on the Institutional Repository and Rising Costs of Electronic Journals/Databases. 


D.  Unit Code Screening Committee

The discussion and approval of two new department unit codes of operation were withdrawn.


E.  University Athletics Committee

Steve Estes (Health and Human Performance), Chair of the Committee, presented a report on ECU and Intercollegiate Athletics. Professor Estes reported on the reconfiguration of the committee following best practices, increasing Faculty Senate oversight and consistency with practices at other institutions. He affirmed the committee’s belief that, as best they can tell, ECU athletics operates with integrity with respect to the institution’s educational mission. He also recognized that systemic problems and pressures exist in intercollegiate athletics that we must continue to face. He stated that the biggest problem is that university athletics are viewed as entertainment, but declared that that is not the case at ECU, and commended the athletics department for it consistent cooperation.


Wilson (Sociology) noted Estes’ use of the phrase “as best we can tell”, and asked if there was further information available that had not been considered or reported. Chair Estes replied the situation in NCAA sports is always fluid, but that they had carried out due diligence in their oversight, and had made their conclusion based on all available evidence. Professor Wilson then noted that it was reported during the NCAA basketball finals that there continues to be a large disparity in that sport between the graduation rates for white and black students, and inquired if that was the case at ECU? Estes responded that our graduation rates for both exceeded the national average, but that disparities still exist.  He cited the 1999 recruitment class statistics: 100% graduation rate for white scholar-athletes as opposed to 60% for African Americans. He also noted that the change in the men’s basketball coach had a negative effect, since students recruited by the former coach transferred and were thus counted as not graduating, and that academic performance by semester was a better indicator and reflected better academic success. He also confirmed that there are programs in place to remedy the disparity.


F.         University Curriculum Committee
David Long (History), member of the Committee presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the April 12, 2007, Committee meeting.  There was no discussion and the minutes were approved as presented.  RESOLUTION #07-16


G.        University Environment Committee

Charles Hodson (Medicine), Chair of the Committee, presented first the revised report on the area near the softball field and Frisbee golf and second on the revised report on Campus Green Space.


Rigsby (Geology) asked about the plan to develop 10th Street and if this meant adding more buildings? Professor Hodson replied that that did not mean built on, but landscaped.


Kim  (Art) noted that the sign for the library entrance facing the street is not very visible when driving in. Chair Hodson said he would pass this concern on to Facilities Services, who were in charge of grounds keeping and signage.


VI.        New Business

There was one item of new business to come before the body and it required a 2/3rd vote to be presented. Once a vote was taken, Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Educational Policies and Planning Committee, offered for information only, the following items of business: (1) School of Allied Health Sciences: Discontinue Masters in Physical Therapy; (2) School of Nursing: Adult Nurse Practitioner Post Master’s Certificate; (3) College of Technology and Computer Science: transfer the M.S. in Software Engineering from the Department of Technology Systems to the Department of Computer Science; (4) College of Business: Certificate in Supply Chain Management and Certificate in Professional Investment Management and Operations.


There being no further business to come before the body, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,



Dale Knickerbocker                                                              Lori Lee

Secretary of the Faculty                                                                    Administrative Officer          

Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures                     Faculty Senate office





07-13    Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior as follows:

East Carolina University is committed to providing each student with a rich, distinctive educational experience. To this end, students who do not follow reasonable standards of behavior in the classroom or other academic setting may be removed from the course by the instructor following appropriate notice. Students removed from a course under this policy will receive a grade of “drop” according to university policy and are eligible for tuition refund as specified in the current tuition refund policy.


Disruptive academic behavior is any behavior likely to substantially or repeatedly interfere with the normal conduct of instructional activities, including meetings with instructors outside of class. Examples of such behavior include, but are not limited to, making loud or distracting noises; using cell phones and other electronic devices without prior approval; repeatedly speaking without being recognized; frequently arriving late to class; and making threats or personal insults. A verbal expression of a disagreement with the instructor or other students on an academic subject matter discussed within the course, during times when the instructor permits discussion, is not in itself disruptive academic behavior.


The course instructor has original purview over his/her class and may deny a student who is unduly disruptive the right to attend the class. A student who does not follow reasonable standards of academic decorum should receive a private verbal warning from the faculty member. The instructor should describe the behavior of concern to the student, explain that it is inappropriate, and ask the student to stop the behavior. If the behavior continues, the instructor should give the student a written warning indicating that the student will be removed from the course if the behavior does not cease. If the behavior persists, the instructor should discuss the situation with his/her department chair. If it is decided to remove the student from the course then the instructor should schedule a meeting with his/her department chair and the student to inform the student that s/he is being removed from the course. This decision must be communicated in writing to the student with a copy promptly forwarded to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. The department chair must promptly communicate the decision in writing to the Office of the Registrar so that the student’s schedule will be adjusted accordingly.


If the behavior is threatening in nature or is likely to result in immediate harm, the faculty member should contact the East Carolina University Police Department for assistance.


The student may appeal the decision of the instructor and department chair to the academic dean of the college in which the course is located. The appeal must be received by the dean, in writing, within three working days of the date of the decision to remove the student from the course. The dean or dean’s designee will review the appeal and the documentation, will discuss the appeal with the faculty member and, after discussion with the student and instructor, can affirm, reverse or modify the decision made by the instructor and department chair. The student, instructor and department chair will be notified of the appeal decision no later than three working days after receiving the appeal. The dean will provide written notification of the appeal decision to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, and also, if the original decision is overturned, to the Registrar’s Office. If the decision is made that the student is to return to the course then the student will be allowed to immediately return to the classroom without academic penalty and the chair will work with the student and instructor to facilitate the completion of any missed work. The dean’s decision is final.


This policy does not restrict the instructor’s prerogative to ask a disruptive student to leave an individual class session where appropriate or to refer the student to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities for violation of the Student Code of Conduct. 


(Once approved, this new policy will be added to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information, Section I.Y.)

Disposition:  Chancellor


07-14    Addition of Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior to the official undergraduate catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations, immediately after the “Class Attendance and Participation Regulations” subsection.) to read as follows:

“Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior

East Carolina University is committed to providing each student with a rich, distinctive educational experience. To this end, students who do not follow reasonable standards of behavior in the classroom or other academic setting may be removed from the course by the instructor following appropriate notice. Students removed from a course under this policy will receive a grade of “drop” according to university policy and are eligible for tuition refund as specified in the current tuition refund policy. “

Disposition:  Chancellor


07-15  Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI.I.I.2.a.(8) in reference to parking privileges for retired faculty, to read as follows:

“8)       Fully retired faculty may request a free B parking permit and may also park in spaces designated  "Retired Faculty." Faculty in phased retirement and retired faculty who are re-employed by the university may request a free B parking permit and may upgrade the B permit to an A permit (by paying the price difference between an A and a B permit) while bypassing the wait-list, but may not park in spaces designated "Retired Faculty.”

Disposition:  Chancellor


07-16 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the April 12, 2007, University Curriculum Committee meeting (available online).

Disposition:  Chancellor