Division Manual – Appendices

Part III. Appendices to Bylaws and Regulations

Appendix A. Divisional Legislative Interpretations

The following Divisional legislative interpretations were made by the Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction, and Elections in response to requests. Per SCB 13.28.4, these interpretations were approved by the Senate. They are therefore adopted as the meaning of the Bylaws and Regulations to which they refer. Related Bylaws and Regulations affected by the interpretation are given in brackets. [Numbering indicates the year and month in which the interpretation was reported to the Division: e.g., May 1968 = 1968.5A. (“A” signifies the first interpretation in that month.)] (CC 31 Aug 06; EC 31 Aug 06, 31 Aug 08)

1968.5 A. College Faculty

[SCB 2.1]

“College Faculty” is understood to mean voting Academic Senate members who are members of a college’s Faculty. (CC 29 Aug 97, 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06)

1968.10 A. Transfer Students; Intercampus Visitors; Education Abroad Students

[SCR 5.1.1]

University of California, Santa Cruz, students while at another campus of the University of California as Intercampus Visitors, or while away under the auspices of the University of California’s Education Abroad Program, remain Santa Cruz students and do not fall within the provisions of SCR 5.1.1. Students who have left the Santa Cruz campus and at some later time apply for re-entry as Intercampus Transferees should not be judged, as to their academic acceptability, entirely on a grade-point average computed only from letter grades awarded for courses taken at other campuses. The transcripts of all such applicants should be referred to the University of California, Santa Cruz, college to which they previously belonged. The college should decide, bearing in mind the general level of performance indicated throughout the University of California by a grade-point average of 2.0, whether the applicants are eligible for readmission to University of California, Santa Cruz, taking account both of work done elsewhere and work done previously at University of California, Santa Cruz. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06)

1968.11 A. Graduation Requirements for Intercampus Visitors

[SCR 10.1.3]

A student wishing to graduate from University of California, Santa Cruz, must take seven courses of the last nine from among courses offered at University of California, Santa Cruz, by a college or department. A student who becomes an Intercampus Visitor during the period over which they take the the final nine courses, can take only two courses (or the unit equivalent of two University of California, Santa Cruz, courses) for credit from among courses offered by the campus which they visit. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 12 May 97; EC 31 Aug 06, 31 Aug 16)

1969.4 A. Letter Grades [Superseded and deleted, 31 Aug 98]

[SCR 9.1.3]

1987.5 A. Appeals of Graduate Student Evaluations and Grades

[SCB 13.21.4 and SCR 16.3.2]

The Graduate Council has the authority to hear the appeals of graduate student grades or evaluations, when disputes cannot be resolved by the instructor or the chair of the appropriate department or graduate committee. This power derives from the plenary authority of the Graduate Council over all matters relating to graduate instruction. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 12 May 97, 31 Aug 98)

1993.10 A. Privilege of Senators Regarding Conflicts of Interest Within the Senate

[SCB 13.25.2]

Under Regents’ Standing Order 103.2, any Academic Senate member is entitled to “the privilege of a hearing by the appropriate committee or committees of the Academic Senate on any matter relating to personal, departmental, or University welfare.” As part of this privilege, any Academic Senate member who has raised such an issue before a Santa Cruz Division Committee is entitled also to raise a question of conflict of interest of any member of such Committee and to receive a timely reply. Under SCB 13.25.2, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure takes cognizance of this privilege. (CC 31 Aug 98)

1996.2 A. Modification of the Faculty Code of Conduct as a Result of the Resolution on Romantic Relationships

[SCB 13.25]

The Resolution on Romantic Relationships was enacted to express the support of the Santa Cruz Division for “present efforts of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure (UC P & T) to introduce an amendment into the Faculty Code of Conduct which would address this important issue of romantic and/or sexual relationships between faculty and students” (AS/SCP/879-1). Thereafter, the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure considered the resolution of the Santa Cruz Division and decided that “[T]he more general language proposed by the SC [Santa Cruz] resolution invites genuine concern over the ability of such an addition to the Faculty Code of Conduct to open the way to dangerous and irresponsible charges,” and that the “SC [Santa Cruz] resolution … was … not … a proper vehicle for … additions to the Code of Conduct” (University Privilege and Tenure Annual Report 1987-1988, May, 1988). UC P&T correctly noted that the Faculty Code already prohibits any relations in which faculty exploit students, but declined to read the Santa Cruz resolution as an authoritative interpretation of that prohibition in the area of sexual relations. The Faculty Code of Conduct was, therefore, not amended to reflect the contents of the UCSC Resolution on Romantic Relationships, and that the Code may not be fairly interpreted to reflect the contents of that resolution except to the extent that it did so previously. The UCSC Resolution on Romantic Relationships does not create a basis for the discipline of an Academic Senate member that is independent of the Faculty Code of Conduct. The Faculty Code is the sole basis on which members of the Academic Senate may be formally disciplined by the administration, and that under Santa Cruz Bylaws, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure is responsible for protecting Academic Senate members from being disciplined for matters that lie outside the Faculty Code. The Faculty Code does not necessarily incorporate all aspects of sexual harassment law that may apply to faculty relations with students. (CC 31 Aug 98)

1996.2 B. Jurisdiction of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure regarding Charges

[SCB 12.9 and 13.25]

The Bylaws of the Santa Cruz Division do not reflect the existence of an administrative Charges Committee, and under SB 335, the Academic Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure retains the power to protect faculty rights at all stages of the disciplinary process. Thus, an Academic Senate member who objects to the procedures and/or the jurisdiction of the Charges Committee on any grounds, or who objects to the decision of the administration to refer a complaint to the Charges Committee, has the right under SB 335 to bring any and all such objections to the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure. That committee has the power to hold an informal hearing on the Academic Senate member’s grievance, and to negotiate a resolution of the complaint with the administration. Such a resolution might include greater P & T involvement in the early stages of the disciplinary process. Therefore, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure has jurisdiction to hear the complaint of any Academic Senate member about the authority and procedures of any organ of the University of California Administration that reviews disciplinary charges against that Academic Senate member. The Committee on Privilege and Tenure also has the full authority of the Academic Senate to negotiate with the administration about how best to preserve the rights of the accused Academic Senate member and the accusing party while a complaint of this nature is before it. (CC 31 Aug 98)

1996.10 A. Letter Grades in Narrative Evaluations

[SCB 13.17.7 and SCR 9.2.1]

The Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) has the authority to issue “Advisory Guidelines on Writing Narrative Evaluations.” Faculty may cite compliance with these guidelines as an appropriate defense against student complaints regarding the content of narrative evaluations. CEP does not have the power to make any or all of the Advisory Guidelines compulsory for Faculty without the approval of the Santa Cruz Division as a whole. SCB 13.17.7 states only that “[t]he Committee consider all matters concerning grading.” No independent power to set Regulations in this area is conferred by the Bylaw, CEP may recommend Regulations to the Division in areas that could include campus grading policy. Any non-advisory change in campus grading policy must be approved by the Santa Cruz Division as a whole. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06)

1996.10 B. Mention of Letter Grades in Graduate Narrative Evaluations

[SCB 13.21.4]

The Graduate Council has the authority to determine when a narrative evaluation for a graduate student can contain reference to a letter grade. SCB 13.21.4 states: “The Graduate Council has plenary authority in all matters relating to graduate courses of instruction in the Santa Cruz Division.” In the areas where the Graduate Council exercises plenary power, it acts for the University of California, Santa Cruz, campus without requiring the approval of any other agency. The scope of the plenary authority of the Graduate Council includes the power to set rules governing the narrative evaluation and grading system for graduate students, except insofar as such Regulation may conflict with the legal and constitutional protections afforded faculty and students. [See DLI 1987.5A] (CC 31 Aug 98)

1996.10 C. Santa Cruz Division Minutes

[SCB 4.3, 6.6, 8.4.1, and 9.1]

The level of detail in Academic Senate minutes is specified in The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th edition. Santa Cruz Division Bylaws make the production of the minutes the responsibility of the Secretary, and this would include the need to check and certify the accuracy of these abstracts.

Over and beyond this need for abstracts of addresses representing the full variety of opinions, the Santa Cruz Division also has a clear precedent for publishing in its minutes the full text of individuals’ addresses to the floor when the weight and significance of those speeches is such that they do not easily lend themselves to summary. If a Senator provides the Chair with a copy of their speech then it is important that the full text of the speech be included in the minutes or as an appendix. (It also seems advisable in such cases to include a note to the effect that the text was provided by the Senator and is not a transcription). [See Santa Cruz Division Minutes of 11/24/1975 and 10/24/1990 for example.] (CC 31 Aug 98, 31 Aug 16; EC 31 Aug 16)

1996.10 D. Santa Cruz Division Call

[SCB 4.3 and 6.4]

The distribution of the Call to meetings may be done via e-mail. Hard copies should continue to be sent to those members who request them in hard-copy form. Hard copies should not be sent only to the department offices and/or steno pools rather than to each member requesting an individual copy. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06)

1996.10 E. Timing of Meeting Minutes with Respect to Mail Ballots

[SCB 6.4, 6.6, 8.4.1, and 9.1]

SCB 8.4.1 provides that a petition requesting a mail ballot “must be submitted not later than 21 days after the minutes of the Santa Cruz Division or of the Advisory Committee reporting such legislation or decision have been placed in the mail.” The linkage between mail ballots and the circulation of minutes is significant, especially in view of DLI 1996.10C, (AS/SCP/1128), that published minutes must report the positions taken by those who spoke to an issue. A mail ballot may not take place until Senators have had the opportunity to review the minutes reporting the action on which the mail ballot was requested. There is, however, nothing in the Bylaws and Regulations that prevents the Secretary from circulating the minutes, or relevant portions thereof, before the Call to the next Regular Meeting. SCB 6.6 states only that the minutes be sent “with or before” the Call. (CC 31 Aug 98, 31 Aug 06)

1996.10 F. Mention of Letter Grades in Narrative Evaluations

[SCR A9.1.3 and 9.2.1 and Appendix C]

Part I .3. [of Section 015 of the Academic Personnel Manual, entitled, “Professional Rights of Faculty,” ] guarantees to the Faculty “constitutionally protected freedom of expression.” Changes in narrative evaluations that go beyond routine copy editing may raise questions of academic freedom and must, therefore, be approved by the signatory faculty member unless the procedures set forth in Appendix C of the Manual of the Santa Cruz Division (“Student Grievance Procedure”) have been followed. Narrative evaluations are student records, and the University of California and its faculty are obliged to respect the interests of individual students in the integrity and appropriateness of such records. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06)

1998.2 A. Divisional Legislative Interpretation on Judgment of Evaluations by designated

[Santa Cruz Division]

Member in each College – SCR 9.4.1B [SCB 13.17.8 and SCR 9.4.1B, Appendix C] SCR 9.4.1B has been superseded by subsequent Divisional legislation (SCB 13.17.8, Appendix C) and legislative interpretations (1996.10A, B and E) establishing procedures and guidelines for the challenge and review of narrative evaluations alleged to contain inappropriate content. To the extent that it conflicts with these subsequent actions of the Division, SCR 9.4.1B is inapplicable. (CC 31 Aug 06)

1998.5 A. Divisional Legislative Interpretation on Conflict of Interest

[SCB 13.4.2 and SB 330A]

A vice chair of a committee is empowered to act as chair in the chair’s absence, and Santa Cruz Bylaw 13.4.2 states, “No Chair of a Department, Program, or Committee of Studies may at the same time serve as Chair of either the Committee on Academic Personnel [CAP] or the Committee on Privilege and Tenure [P&T].” In SCB 13.4.2, “Dean” and “Chair” are generic terms that include associate dean and vice chair respectively, since those titles involve succession. Therefore, a department chair cannot serve as vice chair of either CAP or P&T. This is consistent with SB 330A. (CC 31 Aug 06)

2008.2 A. Divisional Legislative Interpretation on Privileges of non-members of committees listed in the bylaws.

[SCB 13.4] [Superseded in part by SCB 13.4.4.]

The Bylaws for the various standing committees list people as being “invited to sit with” the committee. The privileges of such people are not defined in the Bylaws. Sturgis’ Rules of Procedure recognizes three categories of attendees in a meeting: voting members, non-voting members and invitees. Absent any other definition in the Bylaws, people invited to sit with a committee are interpreted as belonging to the third category in Sturgis. They are invited by default, with no committee vote being needed. However, as with all invitees, as per Sturgis the committee retains the right to rescind the invitation to these people for any meeting, either individually or as a group. The Bylaws also list “representatives” for various standing committees. Again, their privileges are not given in the Bylaws, and therefore they have to be considered as belonging to one of the categories defined in Sturgis. It is not a priori clear whether representatives should be treated as invitees or as non-voting members. However, the phrase “non-voting member” was changed to “non-voting representative” in 1999 by CRJE. Since CRJE is only authorized to make non-substantive changes as per SCB 13.28.5, representatives are non-voting members. As per Sturgis, among other privileges, representatives cannot be excluded from a committee meeting. (Accepted 18 Feb 09)

2008.2 B. Divisional Legislative Interpretation on Waiver of voting rights.

SCB 13.4.5 states that members of the Division “may give up their right to vote on all actions.” The Bylaw goes on to state what happens “if a member goes on leave, but chooses to participate in some personnel actions.” To achieve consistency between the two, and from the fact that SCB 13.4.5 was brought to the Senate by the Committee on Academic Personnel whose charge only covers personnel actions, the first phrase should be interpreted as “may give up their right to vote on all personnel actions.” (Accepted 18 Feb 09)

---

Appendix B. Variances to Systemwide Regulations and Assembly Actions

An asterisk (*) by a listing below indicates that the variance has lapsed or has been fully superseded by a subsequent variance.

A.* Approved by the Academic Assembly 23 May 1966

The Assembly of the Academic Senate approves an experimental program of the Santa Cruz Division combining grading on a Passed or Not Passed basis (with some optional use of conventional grading), comprehensive examinations and/or senior theses, as set forth in the Regulations of the Santa Cruz Division, Chapters 1, 8-12. The experimental program is subject to the following conditions:

1. It shall be limited initially to a five-year period, during which it shall supersede Senate Regulations with which it is otherwise in conflict.

2. It shall be retroactive to September 1, 1965.

3. The operation of the program will be surveyed by the Divisional Committees on Educational Policy, and Examinations and Grades, annually to insure that students are not being penalized or handicapped thereby. Each year the Division will report to the Assembly the results of this survey together with any Divisional actions concerning the program.

4. During the five-year period the Statewide Senate Committee on Educational Policy may periodically examine the operation of the program in relation to the protection of students and the degree to which the program assists in the attainment of educationally-desirable goals, but in any event the Committee will make such a review not later than the end of the fourth year of the program.

5. The Regulations of the Santa Cruz Division embodying the experimental program herein approved supersede the local Santa Cruz Regulation on grading reported to the Assembly at its Regular Meeting of March 11, 1966. (EC 31 Aug 06)

B.* Approved by the Academic Assembly 24 May 1968

The Academic Assembly authorizes the continuance of the variance to SR 780(A) for the Santa Cruz Division until the end of the Summer Term 1975. The University Committee on Educational Policy is directed to periodically examine the operation of the program during the intervening period, and to make a report to the Academic Assembly not later than the spring Regular Meeting of 1974. This report is to include recommendations regarding permanent establishment or withdrawal of the variance to SR 780(A). (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06)

C. Approved by the Academic Assembly 10 March 1969

A variance for Santa Cruz from SR 764 which permits a student registered in an Independent Study Program to enroll for a maximum of 15 units in a 199 course, as provided in SCR 6.5.4. This variance was made obsolete when SR 764 was repealed 21 Apr 2010. (EC 31 Aug 09, 31 Aug 17)

D.* Approved by the Academic Assembly 3 November 1969

The Assembly approved a variance from SR 780 which permits Pass/Fail grading for graduate students at Santa Cruz to extend through the Summer Term, 1975. (CC 31 Aug 98)

E.* Approved by the Academic Assembly 15 June 1971

The Assembly approved a variance from SR 750 allowing upper division undergraduates to serve as apprentice teachers, on condition that SCR 6.9.1 be amended so that no student may enroll more than once in such a course, and with the stipulation that the Division report periodically to the University Committee on Educational Policy on its operation. (Expired July 1, 1974).

F.* Approved by the Academic Assembly 8 March 1972

The Assembly approved a variance from SR 900 in order to adapt the University Scholarship Regulations to the Santa Cruz grading system, as provided in SCR A12 on academic standing. SCR 12 was amended in May 2001 to bring it in compliance with SR 900, rendering this variance obsolete. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 09)

G.* Approved by the Academic Assembly 30 March 1974

The Assembly of the Academic Senate voted that the variance from SR 780(A) shall no longer be provisional but should be permanently established as stated in the recommendations of the University Committee on Educational Policy. SCR 9.3.1, specifying the grading system for comprehensive examinations, was part of this variance. The variance was superseded by the approval of the Santa Cruz grading system (see G below), therefore SCR 9.3.1, which does not conflict with any systemwide legislation, no longer requires a variance. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 09)

H. Approved by the Academic Assembly 27 February 1997

The Assembly of the Academic Senate approved a change in the Santa Cruz undergraduate grading policy to adopt the formal standard for academic achievement used by the rest of the UC system (SR 778). This change allows students to choose a letter grade option (A-F) for all courses except designated P/NP courses, and an official GPA to be computed if a student chooses letter grades for two-third of their courses. For the first 15 credits of repeated work, only the last grade recorded is computed in the student’s GPA, as provided in SCR A9.4.1.e. Repetition of a course more than once requires approval of a student’s college, as provided in SCR A9.1.8. Students are permitted to withdraw from courses as provided in SCR A6.1.4. In accordance with SR 778, a grade of Pass is awarded for work meeting the standard of at least C. In accordance with SR 778, this Assembly approved grading system automatically supersedes SR 780, 782 and 784. The Assembly approved an extension of the letter grade option (A-F) to graduate students at Santa Cruz, as provided for in SCR 13.1.3. Students may repeat courses in which they received a grade of C, D, F or U, as provided in SCR A13.1.6. The default option for graduate students was approved as being Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory, as provided in SCR A13.1.1. In accordance with SR 778, a grade of Satisfactory is awarded for work meeting the standard of at least B. In accordance with SR 778, this Assembly approved grading system automatically supersedes SR 780, 782 and 784. The changes are effective Fall 1997. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06, 31 Aug 09)

I. Approved by the Academic Assembly 27 February 1997

At the time that the Santa Cruz grading system received final approval by the Assembly in 1974, the language of the Santa Cruz Regulation neglected to mention the role of the Academic Senate in supervising narrative evaluations. UCEP and the Assembly asked for that oversight to be corrected; the correction was made and appropriate amendments to the Regulation were put into effect at Santa Cruz in 1975. However, that amended language is not to be found in Assembly records to indicate that it had been brought back for Assembly approval. The language was reported to UCEP and to the Academic Council and was recorded as part of the approved variance (it also exists in the present wording of the Santa Cruz grading policy). The Assembly of the Academic Senate approved the amendments to the Santa Cruz grading system; in that approval, it acknowledged that it was approving existing language which through an oversight was not brought to the Assembly in 1975. The changes are effective fall 1997. (CC 31 Aug 98)

J. Approved by the Academic Assembly 28 February 2001

The Assembly approved a change to the Santa Cruz undergraduate grading system under the new procedures specified in SR 778. As per SCR A9.1.1 and SCR A9.1.4 as amended by the Division in February and November 2000 respectively, letter grades are the default option for undergraduate courses and +/- suffixes are included for grades A-C (no minus suffix to grade C). For the first fifteen credits of repeated work, only the last grade recorded is computed in the student’s GPA, as provided in SCR A9.4.1.f. In accordance with SR 778, this Assembly approved grading system automatically supersedes SR 780, 782 and 784. (EC 31 Aug 09)

K. Approved by the Academic Assembly 11 June 2008

SCR 11.4 to 11.7 as enacted by the Division in 2007, together with the preexisting SCR 11.1-11.3, were approved by the Assembly as required by SR 640.

---

Appendix C. Undergraduate Academic Assessment Grievance Procedure

1. A grievance may be filed if the student believes that the instructor has given a course grade or evaluation of the student’s work by criteria that were not clearly and directly related to the student’s performance in the course for which the grade or evaluation was assigned, as by the use of: (Am 20 May 05)
   • Non-academic criteria such as ethnicity, political views, religion, age, sex, financial status, or national origin; (for a complete list of criteria, see APM 015.A.2.). (Am 20 May 05, 31 Aug 17)
   • Capricious or arbitrary application of academic criteria in a manner not reflective of student performance in relation to course requirements. (Am 20 May 05)
2. A grievance must be initiated within the time limits specified in Part IV of this Regulation. (Am 20 May 05)
3. Resolution of a grievance should follow these steps in this sequence: (Am 20 May 05)
   • A student who has a grievance concerning an evaluation or grade should first approach the instructor to see if the issue can be resolved. The initial contact must take place within one regular academic quarter from the issuance of the grade or evaluation. (Am 20 May 05)
   • If the matter is not resolved, the student should submit the grievance and documentation in writing to the executive officer of the academic sponsoring unit (department chair or college provost). The executive should attempt to facilitate a consensual resolution of the grievance between the student and the instructor. (Am 20 May 05)
4. Appeals
   • Resolution of a grievance: If the grievance is not resolved by steps III.  A and B, the student may appeal to the Committee on Courses of Instruction (CCI).  (CC 31 Aug 17)
   • Requirements for Timely Filing: A formal appeal must be filed within six months for summer, fall, and winter quarter courses or nine months for spring quarter courses per the grading deadline; (5 days after the last day of finals); of the date on which the disputed grade or evaluation was made part of the student’s permanent record by the Registrar. (En 21 Feb 96; Am 20 May 05, 6 Mar 09)
   • The Committee on Courses of Instruction (CCI) will review the grievance and consult with the appropriate chair(s).  If the Committee finds there is substantial evidence that the grievance has merit, it will conduct an informational investigation, during which it may request that the student and instructor provide or present additional evidence.  (Am 21 Feb 96, 20 May 05; CC 20 May 81, 31 Aug 17)
   • After the investigation, the CCI shall attempt to facilitate a consensual resolution of the grievance with the student and the instructor.  If no resolution is reached, the Committee will decide the matter.  (CC 31 Aug 17)
   • The decision may include: 1) no change, 2) removal of course from transcript, 3) removal of evaluation from transcript, or 4) change of grade to Pass, No Pass, or Withdraw. In the case of option 4, if the course was originally taken for a letter grade, the change to a Pass will not affect the student’s ability to graduate under letter grade requirements. The Committee’s decision is final. A faculty member may request their name be removed from the course in the official transcript. (Am 21 Feb 96, 20 May 05; CC 20 May 81, 31 Aug 24)
   • These procedures are designed solely to determine whether non-academic criteria or the capricious or arbitrary application of academic criteria have been used in assigning a grade or evaluation, and if so to affect a change of that grade or evaluation.
     • No punitive actions may be taken against the instructor on the basis of these procedures.  Neither the filing of charges nor the final disposition of the case shall, under any circumstances, become a part of the personnel file of the instructor.    Sanctions against an instructor for violation of the Faculty Code may be sought by filing a complaint in accordance with CAPPM 002.015
     • No punitive action may be taken against the complainant on the basis of these procedures.  Neither the filing of charges nor the final disposition of the case shall, under any circumstances, become a part of the complainant’s record.

---

Appendix D. Graduate Program

In accordance with Section IV of the Regulations of the Santa Cruz Division, the following items pertain to the policies and administration of the various graduate programs. The authorization for such programs is contained in the Regulations, Section IV, and its subchapters. (En 31 Aug 02)

Graduate Program

I. General.

A. The ensuing policies with regard to the graduate program are issued by the Graduate Council in accordance with SCB 13.21. (Am 9 June 93; CC 29 Aug 97, 31 Aug 98, 31 Aug 02; EC 1 Aug 73)

II. Admissions.

A. The admission of graduate students is subject to the provisions of SR 510 and 520. (CC 31 Aug 99)

B. Application for admission to graduate study should be made to the Division of Graduate Studies by students with the Bachelor’s degree from the University of California or other such institution in good academic standing. Evidence of capacity to successfully carry out graduate study leading to an advanced degree at the University of California, Santa Cruz, normally shall be a record that shows at least a B average (3.0 on a 4-point scale) overall and in the student’s major subject. A student applying for admission to graduate study from an institution grading on a Pass/Fail basis must have their academic promise evaluated by three persons competent to make an appraisal of the student’s work. (Am 26 May 99; CC 1 Feb 88, 31 Aug 98; EC 1 Aug 77, 31 Aug 06, 31 Aug 16)

C. Students are admitted for graduate study by administrative officers acting under the authority of the Graduate Council and on the recommendation of the appropriate department. Students without a specific degree objective are limited to one academic year of enrollment and must be sponsored by a member of the Academic Senate who has agreed in writing to supervise their studies. (Am 25 May 94; EC 12 May 97)

D. Students are not admitted to graduate study under a department that does not offer an approved graduate program unless the appropriate academic divisional dean is satisfied that an approved program is likely to be offered within one calendar year from the date of registration. (CC 1 Aug 77; EC 12 May 97)

E. Applications of students who already have pursued graduate study at another campus of the University of California or at another institution are reviewed in the same way as other applications for admission to graduate study. The department concerned determines the amount of transferable credit in accordance with SR 726 and subject to the policies of the Graduate Council. (CC 31 Aug 99; EC 12 May 97)

F. Applicants for Master’s and doctoral programs may be required to provide the results of the Graduate Record Examination General Test, as decided by vote of the program faculty. The Council encourages departments and programs to consider the value of GRE scores in their admissions process as they see fit. The Council expects that, regardless of each program’s stance on the value of the GRE as an indicator of quality, programs will employ an effective comprehensive review policy that strives to identify and attract a first-rate body of graduate students to the campus. (En 31 Aug 07; EC 31 Aug 08; Am 3 Oct 19)

III. Student Programs.

IV. Academic Progress [Taken from the Graduate Handbook, approved by GC in 2000] (CC 31 Aug 08)

A. A duly registered graduate student is considered to be in good standing so long as (a) the student not advanced to candidacy undertakes a minimum of two upper division or graduate level courses per quarter and passes a minimum of five 5-credit courses toward a terminal degree or certificate by the end of each academic year; the student advanced to candidacy undertakes and passes at least one course per quarter, usually Thesis Research, OR (b) the student’s department or committee of studies determines that they are making satisfactory academic progress toward a terminal degree or certificate.  In addition, the student must meet the criteria below.

B. The academic progress of each continuing graduate student shall be reviewed annually by the student’s department or committee of studies by the end of the spring term.

C. A student whose academic progress is judged not satisfactory will be recommended for academic notice until such time (one academic year, maximum) as their progress has become satisfactory once again and the Graduate Dean has been so informed in writing by the Graduate Representative of the student’s department. (CC 31 Aug 24, 1 Sep 24)

D. Students on academic notice are not eligible for merit fellowship support and will receive lower priority for academic appointments at UCSC (including Teaching Assistant, Teaching Fellow, Graduate Student Researcher, etc.). Special justifications will be required to appoint students on academic notice so long as there are any other students in the program who lack financial support. (CC 1 Sep 24)

E. A student whose academic progress has been found not satisfactory in two successive annual reviews will be subject to dismissal from the University.

F. A full-time student who has been enrolled in the same graduate program for four calendar years without advancing to candidacy for the doctorate is not considered to be making satisfactory progress and will be recommended for academic notice until advancement is achieved. (CC 1 Sep 24)

G. A student who has been advanced to candidacy for more than three calendar years is not considered to be making satisfactory academic progress and may be recommended for academic notice for up to one academic year by the student’s department. (CC 1 Sep 24)

H. A full-time master’s degree student is considered not to be making satisfactory progress beyond three calendar years of enrollment and may be recommended for academic notice for up to one academic year by their department. (CC 1 Sep 24)

I. Students on academic notice will continue to be eligible for institutional, state, and federal need-based assistance for up to one academic year to support their efforts to make up satisfactory academic progress shortfalls. (CC 1 Sep 24)

J. A student who fails to register promptly following expiration of an approved leave of absence is not in good standing. The usual term for a leave of absence is three academic quarters, and all requests to extend or renew a leave must be approved in advance by the Graduate Dean.

K. Only students in good standing are eligible for leaves of absence. Students who are neither registered nor on an approved leave of absence are not in good standing. Only students in good standing are eligible to use the Filing Fee.

L. Time to Degree

1. Full-time graduate students are expected to complete their degree objectives within the following maximum time frames:
   • Certificate students: one calendar year from the date of first enrollment in the program;
   • Master’s degree students: three calendar years from the date of first enrollment in the program;
   • Doctoral students: six calendar years for all programs except Anthropology, History, History of Consciousness, and Literature, where it is seven years.
2. Part-time graduate students are subject to the same provisions as full-time students, except that satisfactory progress toward degree completion is measured at a minimum of one course per quarter or three courses per academic year, and the maximum time frame is prorated accordingly:
   • Certificate students: two calendar years
   • Master’s degree students: six calendar years
   • Doctoral students: eleven calendar years (Once advanced to candidacy a student is considered full-time when enrolled in thesis research.)
3. For the purpose of measuring satisfactory academic progress, course incomplete, withdrawals, repetitions, and noncredit courses do not count as courses completed. (CC 31 Aug 08)

V. Certificate Requirements [Taken from the Graduate Handbook, approved by GC in 2000] (CC 31 Aug 08)

A. The minimum residency requirement for a Certificate at the University of California is three quarters. In order to be eligible to receive a certificate from UC Santa Cruz, you must be registered at the Santa Cruz campus for at least two of the three quarters.

B. The student must submit an Application for the Certificate to the department for review by the end of the second week of the quarter in which the student intends to receive the certificate.
(CC 31 Aug 08)

VI. The Master’s Degree. (EC 31 Aug 08; Am 28 February 20)

A. In accordance with SR 682, the minimum residence requirement is three quarters at the University of California, of which at least two must be spent at the University of California, Santa Cruz campus. At least one of the three quarters must occur after the student has applied for admission to candidacy for the Master’s degree. (SR 724) Residence is established by satisfactory completion of one course per term. (CC 1 Aug 77, 31 Aug 98, 31 Aug 99)

B. Programs for the Master’s degree are subject to SR 720-726. (CC 31 Aug 98, 31 Aug 99) C. Students pursuing academic Master’s Degrees (M.A. and M.S.) will pursue either a thesis (Plan I) or capstone (Plan II) curriculum. Individual programs may adopt one or both plans. Candidates for either plan are subject to guidance by the program’s faculty respecting the distribution of the student’s workload among departments. Subject to the approval of the Academic Senate, programs are to develop M.A. and M.S. degree requirements appropriate to the field of study. These requirements must meet the following minimum standards. (EC 31 Aug 06)

C.1 Minimum Number of Units Required
Plan I: Must require a minimum of 35 quarter units of graduate and upper division courses, of which no more than 15 units may be upper division undergraduate courses. Of the required graduate-level courses, a minimum of 20 units must be courses other than supervised research, except by special exception of the Graduate Council. This exception shall be provided to the program as a whole, rather than case-by-case to individual candidates. Plan II: Must require a minimum of 35 quarter units of graduate and upper division courses, of which no more than 15 units may be upper division undergraduate courses. Supervised research classes may not count towards the satisfaction of minimum unit requirements for Plan II candidates.

C.2 Minimum Requirements: Master’s programs may be offered under the thesis (Plan I) or capstone (Plan II) plan.

Thesis Plan I: A Master’s research thesis, viewed as acceptable by a thesis committee appointed by the program faculty, is required of each candidate. The completed thesis must be filed with the Graduate Division by the end of instruction in the term in which the candidate expects the degree to be awarded.

Capstone Plan II: Under the capstone plan, students complete a capstone requirement, which may be a comprehensive exam, an individual project, or a group project. A comprehensive final examination or project in the major subject, of such nature and conducted in such manner as may be determined by the department faculty or faculty group concerned, is required of each candidate. The nature and timing of the comprehensive exam must be approved by the faculty of the department or faculty group concerned and published in the program requirements. For group projects, there must be a mechanism for identifying and evaluating the contributions of each participating student. The nature of the Plan II capstone is to be approved by the Graduate Council for the program as a whole. (CC 1 Aug 77, 1 Feb 88, 6 Apr 06; EC 12 May 97)

D. A Committee to read and evaluate the Master’s thesis is appointed by the candidate’s program, and the program shall at the same time notify the Division of Graduate Studies of the membership of the Committee by the end of the second week of the quarter in which the degree is to be granted. The majority of the membership of a thesis reading committee shall be members of the Santa Cruz Division of the Academic Senate. A change in the membership of the committee, once appointed, may only be made with the approval of the Graduate Dean. (En 29 May 91; CC 31 Aug 15; EC 12 May 97)

E. The student must submit an Application for the Master’s Degree to the program for review by the end of the second week of the quarter in which the student intends to receive the degree. (CC 31 Aug 08)

VII. The Ph.D./Ed.D./DMA Degree. (CC 31 Aug 08; EC 31 Aug 08)

A. In accordance with SR 686 the minimum residence requirement for the doctoral degree is six terms, three of which must be spent in residence at the University of California, Santa Cruz campus. Residence is established by the satisfactory completion of one course per term. (CC 1 Aug 77, 31 Aug 98, 31 Aug 99; EC 31 Aug 08)

B. Subject to the approval of the Graduate Council, each department determines the language requirement appropriate to its subject-matter area and defines the means by which students demonstrate their language proficiency. The student must have satisfied all language requirements in their field of study before taking the qualifying examination for advancement to candidacy for the doctoral degree. (EC 1 Aug 77, 12 May 97, 31 Aug 08, 31 Aug 16)

C. Advancement to candidacy follows and is contingent upon the passing of an oral examination (departments may also require a written examination) and the appointment of a qualified Dissertation Reading Committee. A student cannot be advanced to candidacy with course grades of “I” (Incomplete) standing on their record. (Am 17 Feb 78, 26 Feb 97; 8 Mar 84 EI, 25 May 94; CC 1 Feb 88; EC 31 Aug 16)

D. The student must be a registered graduate student the quarter they take the qualifying examination.  [Taken from the Graduate Handbook, approved by GC in 2000] (CC 31 Aug 08; EC 31 Aug 16)

E. The qualifying examination committee shall consist of at least four examiners, one of whom is not a member of the student’s department. The department shall submit to the Office of the Graduate Dean at least one month before the proposed examination a list of four qualified persons who are willing to serve on the examination committee, and who meet the following conditions:

1. The Chair of the Examination Committee must be a tenured faculty member.
2. The student’s thesis advisor cannot chair the examination committee unless this is specifically allowed by departmental policy.
3. The outside member must be either a tenured faculty member from a different discipline on the University of California, Santa Cruz, campus, a tenured faculty member of the same or different discipline from another academic institution involved in research and graduate education, or a qualified person outside of academia with significant research experience. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 31 Aug 06)
4. These nominations must be approved by the Graduate Dean, who is authorized to grant exceptions to the guidelines when requested in writing by the departmental chair. (Am 26 Feb 97; EC 1 Aug 77, 31 Aug 08)

F. Before applying for advancement to candidacy the student must satisfy the language requirement (if applicable), pass the qualifying examination, complete all required course work, clear all incompletes, and submit a Dissertation Reading Committee form to the Graduate Dean for approval. [Taken from the Graduate Handbook, approved by GC in 2000] (CC 31 Aug 08)

G. Advancement to Candidacy takes effect on the first day of the quarter following the receipt of the Qualifying Examination Report and the Dissertation Reading Committee form, Language Requirement form (if applicable) and the Advancement to Candidacy fee in the Graduate Studies office. [Taken from the Graduate Handbook, approved by GC in 2000] (CC 31 Aug 08)

H. At least one academic term in registration must intervene between Advancement to Candidacy and the award of the degree. (Am 17 Apr 74, 26 Feb 97; CC 1 Aug 77; EC 31 Aug 08)

I. If the doctoral degree is not awarded within seven years from the date of Advancement to candidacy, the student’s candidacy shall lapse and the student will be required either to pass a new qualifying exam prior to submitting the dissertation or undergo such other formal review as the student’s department shall direct, with the result of this examination or review being transmitted in writing to the Graduate Council. (En 12 Feb 92; Am 26 Feb 97; EC 31 Aug 08)

K. A committee to read and pass upon the dissertation is appointed by the candidate’s department, subject to the approval of the Graduate Dean. The committee will have at least three members, and at least half of the committee must be members of the Santa Cruz Division of the Academic Senate.  A change in membership of the dissertation committee must be approved by the Graduate Dean.  (Am 10 Feb 78, 2 June 78, 29 May 91, 26 Feb 97; CC 1 Aug 77, 1 Feb 88, CC 31 Aug 08; EC 31 Aug 08, 31 Aug 15)

L. The student must either be a registered student or on Filing Fee the quarter in which the degree is to be conferred. The Announcement of Candidacy and Application for a doctoral degree must be submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies by the end of the second week of the quarter in which the degree is to be awarded. [Taken from the Graduate Handbook, approved by GC in 2000] (CC 31 Aug 08)

M. The dissertation, completed in the format specified by the Graduate Council and approved by the dissertation committee, must be submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies and Research by the end of instruction in the term in which the degree is to be awarded. (CC 1 Aug 77, 1 Feb 88, EC 31 Aug 08)

N. If the report of a qualifying examination committee or a dissertation committee is not unanimous, the Graduate Dean shall, before certifying that the examination is passed, make such investigation of the case as the Graduate Dean deems necessary and present the findings to the Graduate Council for its final disposition of the case. (En 10 Feb 78; CC 1 Aug 78, 1 Feb 88, EC 31 Aug 08, 31 AUG 16)

VIII. Scholarship. (EC 31 Aug 08)

A. A graduate student may be dismissed or placed on academic notice by the Graduate Dean on grounds of poor academic performance, upon recommendation of the department. (Am 4 June 69; CC 1 Feb 88, 1 Sep 24; EC 12 May 97, 31 Aug 08)

IX. Financial Aid. (EC 31 Aug 08)

A. Responsibilities of the Graduate Council with regard to financial aid of graduate students are as specified in SB 330B(5). (CC 4 Aug 87, 31 Aug 98, 31 Aug 99)

B. Fellowships funded from University sources are awarded by the Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Recommendations are made to the Graduate Council by departments, reviewed by the Graduate Council to determine priorities, and forwarded to the Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz. (CC 31 Aug 98; EC 12 May 97)

C. Regents’ Graduate Fellowships are normally awarded for one year, but they may be renewed for a total period not to exceed three years. Preference is given to first-year graduate students. Awards are made by the Chancellor of Santa Cruz with the advice and counsel of the Graduate Council. (CC 31 Aug 98)

D. Students are appointed as readers, teaching assistants, or research assistants upon the recommendation of the department or college which supervises them. Appointment is subject to the approval of the appropriate academic divisional dean. (CC 1 Aug 77; EC 12 May 97)

X. Public Academic Ceremonies. (EC 31 Aug 08)

A. In order for a student to qualify for an advanced degree, the requirements for said degree must be met, as certified by the department on an appropriate form of the Division of Graduate Studies. To qualify for participation in graduate commencement exercises, doctoral students and thesis master’s candidates must meet all requirements for their degrees, including submittal of the completed thesis or dissertation, no later than the end of the ninth week of the term in which the degree is to be awarded. Exceptions will be made to participate in spring commencement exercises only if the student’s graduate advisor in consultation with other committee members and the departmental graduate representative certify that all degree requirements will be completed with reasonable certainty by June 30. (En 9 Mar 73; CC 1 Aug 77, 1 Feb 88; Am 21 Feb 96, 4 Apr 02; EC 12 May 97, 31 Aug 06)

XI. Review of Graduate Programs. (EC 31 Aug 08)

A. All graduate programs approved by the Graduate Council shall be subject to detailed review by the Graduate Council at intervals of six to eight years.  In normal cases, for programs associated with a single department, reviews may be conducted in concert with the departmental reviews.  At least once every six to eight years, at the time of departmental reviews if appropriate, the reviews will include evaluations of the graduate programs by external committees.  The external review committee may be identical to the departmental one.  Other reviews may be conducted, with or without an external review committee of one or more members as needed, in cases deemed appropriate by the Graduate Council.  Such intermediate reviews are advisable for new programs and other programs needing a greater than normal level of monitoring.  After a graduate program review is completed, including follow-up reports, the Graduate Council shall recommend, based on the issues raised in the review reports and the level of compliance with recommended changes, a date by which the next review should take place for programs that are approved for continuation.  A review shall take place no later than that recommended date, but may take place sooner if the Graduate Council deems one to be necessary. The review process shall be coordinated by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the Division of Graduate Studies.  The Graduate Council shall exercise oversight of all aspects of the graduate portion of the review process, including approval of the charge and external review committee and the nature of the site visit, the closure meeting, and follow-up reports. The Graduate Council expects a programmatic review within six to eight years of the prior review.  If a review within this period is not completed, suspension of graduate admissions is warranted unless the Council is successfully petitioned.  (CC 31 Aug 15; Am 4 Apr 02; EC 31 Aug 08)

XII. Appeals of Academic Judgments. (En 1 Aug 84; Am 7 Jan 88, 26 May 99, 24 Apr 08, 21 May 09; EC 31 Aug 02, 31 Aug 08, 31 Aug 09, 31 Aug 16)

Revisions approved by Graduate Council on May 21, 2009, and effective July 1, 2009

Students have the right to appeal various institutional judgments concerning their academic standing at UC Santa Cruz including dismissal from graduate standing, placement on academic notice status, narrative evaluation or grade notation, and their academic progress. This appeal procedure applies only to enrolled graduate students at UC Santa Cruz and is not available to appeal denial of admission or readmission to any program. (CC 1 Sep 24)

The scope of this procedure is limited to the matters listed above, and excludes complaints regarding student employment as a Teaching Assistant, student discipline, auxiliary student services (such as housing, child care, etc.), and sexual harassment, which are covered by other policies and procedures. 

This document outlines the four levels of complaint resolution available to graduate students at UC Santa Cruz:

• Graduate Dean appeal, and
• Instructor appeal,
• Departmental appeal,
• Graduate Council appeal. 

Throughout all stages of the appeal process, both parties are strongly encouraged to seek informal resolution. The Graduate Dean may be consulted for informal resolution at any stage of the process. Working toward informal resolution does not preclude continuation of a formal appeal. However, unless a request for extension of a deadline is granted as provided below, informal resolution efforts shall not serve in any way to stay or extend an applicable filing deadline.

Requests for Extension of Filing Deadlines: Except as otherwise provided in this policy, any party may for good cause seek an extension of a deadline by filing a request with the Graduate Dean. Such request must be submitted in writing prior to the deadline for which an extension is sought, and must explain the reason(s) why an extension is necessary. The decision to grant or deny a request is within the discretion of the Dean and shall be final and binding.

Basis for Appeals An appeal may be filed based upon one or more of the following grounds, provided that the action complained of has had a material impact on the student’s academic standing:

1. Procedural error or violation of official policy by academic or administrative personnel;
2. Judgments improperly based upon non-academic criteria including, but not limited to, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, medical condition, ancestry, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or status as a veteran or special disabled veteran, or any personal or arbitrary reasons;
3. Special mitigating circumstances beyond the student’s control not properly taken into account in a decision affecting the student’s academic progress;
4. Capricious or arbitrary application of appropriate criteria in a manner not reflective of the student’s performance in relation to a course or program requirement.

Procedure for Appeals

Throughout the appeals process all time periods are expressed in working days within the academic term or during the normal working days of summer. Students should be aware that appeals begun late in spring or in summer may be delayed by the unavailability of specific faculty and/or the Graduate Council. A written appeal must be initiated by the student within the time limits specified below. The student must seek resolution of the action sequentially as described below, unless the action complained of is not an evaluation or grade notation. In that instance, the student would begin the appeal with Step II below.

Step I. If the student is appealing an evaluation or grade notation, the appeal must be submitted to the instructor who provided the evaluation or grade notation;

Step II. For all other appeals, or if the student is continuing the appeal of an evaluation or grade notation, the appeal must be submitted to the student’s major department;

Step III. The Graduate Dean;

Step IV. The Graduate Council. In all cases (Step I through IV), the appeal should indicate the action(s) being appealed, the date(s) the action(s) occurred, the grounds upon which the appeal is based, and the outcome desired.

Step I. Appeal to Instructor

If a student is appealing a narrative evaluation or grade notation, the student must submit a written appeal to the instructor of the course within twenty (20) working days of the deadline contained in the campus Academic and Administrative Calendar for submittal of narrative evaluations or grade notation or, if that deadline has passed, of the actual date when the faculty member filed the narrative evaluation or grade notation. The chair of the faculty member’s department should be copied on the appeal, in order to inform the student if the faculty member is unavailable. The faculty member may elect to meet with the student to discuss the appeal and determine if a reasonable compromise can be reached that is acceptable to both parties. The faculty member must submit a written response to the student with a copy to chair of the student’s department within ten (10) working days of the date of the student’s Step I appeal. This deadline may be extended by the chair of the faculty member’s department or the department chair’s designee should the faculty member be away from campus for research, administrative duties, sabbatical time, or personal leave. If the course in question was sponsored by a unit other than the student’s home department, the appeal should be addressed to the instructor of the course and copied to the chairs of the two departments jointly.

Step II. Appeal to the Department

The student may continue the appeal of an evaluation or grade notation with the department. In addition, a student may begin the appeal of any other action at this level. Students continuing the appeal of an evaluation or grade notation must submit a written appeal to the chair of the department of the faculty instructor of the course, and this appeal must be submitted within twenty (20) working days of the date of the written response from the faculty instructor in Step I. If the course in question was sponsored by a unit other than the student’s home department, the chair of the student’s home department should be copied. In addition, the student may begin the appeal of any other department action at this level by submitting a written appeal to the chair of the department. This appeal must be submitted within twenty (20) working days of the date of the notice of the appealed action.

Review of the appeal at the departmental level should be conducted by the departmental graduate affairs committee or analogous group.  This group should minimally include two or more faculty members.  If a faculty member’s action(s) is the subject of the appeal, they must recuse themselves from the committee.  Departments may also elect to establish an ad hoc committee to handle appeals filed in a given academic year.  The committee will initiate a review process within ten (10) working days of receipt of the appeal.

The committee or its designated members may elect to interview the faculty member and/or student involved in the appeal. The appeal must be concluded within fifteen (15) working days of receiving the written appeal from the student.

The committee will render its decision in written form within five (5) working days of the conclusion of the review process. For the decision to be binding, it must be consensual and accepted by all parties.

If the action being appealed, such as academic notice or dismissal, was initiated by the department, the review process remains the same. (CC 1 Sep 24)

After ten (10) working days, the suggested resolution, if not accepted by all parties, becomes null and void.

Step III. Appeal to the Graduate Dean

The student may elect to submit a written appeal of the department’s decision to the Graduate Dean. The decision must be appealed within ten (10) working days of the expiration of the department’s suggested resolution (see Step II).

At the discretion of the Graduate Dean, the appeal may be assigned to the Associate Graduate Dean. Additionally, if the Dean determines that the appeal should be submitted directly to the Graduate Council (for example, if the Dean determines that a fair and impartial hearing may be jeopardized by conflicts within the Graduate Division or other extenuating circumstances), the Dean may refer the appeal directly to the Graduate Council.

The Graduate Dean will review all documents and records submitted in the departmental review.  In addition the Graduate Dean may meet with the student, faculty member(s), and/or graduate affairs committee, where appropriate, and may consider additional materials as the Graduate Dean deems appropriate.  The nominal time limit for completing the Graduate Dean’s review in within twenty (20) working days of receipt of the student’s appeal. The Graduate Dean may suggest a resolution of the appeal in written form within five (5) working days of completion of their review.  For the decision to be binding, it must be consensual and accepted by all parties.

After ten (10) working days, the suggested resolution, if not accepted by all parties, becomes null and void.

Step IV. Appeal to the Graduate Council

The student may submit a final appeal to the Graduate Council within ten (10) working days of the expiration of the Dean’s suggested resolution (see Step III).  The Graduate Council is a committee of the Academic Senate.  There are ten Santa Cruz faculty members, plus the Graduate Dean serving ex officio. In addition, there are one Library representative nominated by the UCSC Librarians Association, no more than three Graduate Student Association representatives, and one Postdoctoral Scholars Association Representative. A quorum of the Graduate Council consists of at least half of the Senate members of the committee.

The student will submit a written appeal to the Graduate Council through the Academic Senate Office.  The Graduate Dean will forward all pertinent documents to the Graduate Council for evaluation. The Chair may request additional information, as the Chair deems necessary.

The Graduate Council, or a subcommittee of the Council appointed by the Chair, will review the file and determine whether sufficient cause exists to justify a formal hearing.  This determination must be made within ten (10) working days of receipt of the student’s appeal, a written decision must be submitted within five (5) working days thereafter.  If the Council declines to hear the case, this would be the final conclusion of the appeals process.

If the Council determines that a hearing is to be held, the student and instructor or chair of the department will be notified of the initial hearing date in writing at least twenty (20) working days in advance.  The hearing may continue to later session if necessary but in any case must be completed within ten (10) working days after the hearing. The Graduate Council Chair may at their discretion constitute a subcommittee of at least four members, including at least one student representative, and including an odd number of voting members, to hear the appeal, or they may convene the Graduate Council as a whole, as appropriate to the case and circumstances.   If a subcommittee is established, it acts for the Graduate Council for the remainder of the appeal at this level.  At least five (5) calendar days prior to the hearing date, each party shall provide the other with all relevant materials, as permitted by law, including: names of all witnesses and any and all written materials to be introduced at the hearing.  Copies of this material must also be submitted to the Graduate Council at least ten (10) working days prior to the hearing. It is expected that a final written judgment will be made available no later than the end of the academic quarter immediately following the quarter of the initiation of the appeal to the Graduate Council.

During the appeal, the Graduate Council shall review the charges.  At the hearing, the Graduate Council may interview such witnesses as are brought to the hearing by either party or such other witnesses as the Graduate Council considers relevant.

During the procedure, with the exception of formal voting authority (which rests solely with the members of the committee that belong to the Academic Senate), the graduate student members of the Graduate Council participate fully and equally with faculty members of the Graduate Council to review the issues of the case and ensure due process for the student.  The graduate students are not to be viewed as a special resource or advocate for the student to any greater degree than any individual faculty member of the Graduate Council.

A formal hearing will follow these procedures and conditions:

1. The student:
   • shall be present throughout the hearing.  If the student fails to attend the hearing, they shall be considered to have abandoned their appeal unless deferral was granted by the Graduate Council;
   • may be accompanied by a Senate member of their choice, if desired and available;
   • may be accompanied by a graduate student of their choice to serve in an advisory role, if desired and available;
     Please note:  although Graduate Council will attempt to accommodate requests, the non-availability of a requested accompanying Senate member or graduate student is not sufficient cause for delay of an appeals hearing, nor does it affect the legitimacy of the Council’s findings.
   • shall have the right to present evidence, including witnesses, first; and
   • may cross-examine all witnesses presented by the instructor, department, or dean.
     
     If the student desires a Senate member as an advisor and is unable to secure a Senate member to serve in this role, the Graduate Council, at the student’s request, will appoint a faculty member to act in this role.  This advisor may or may not be a member of the Graduate Council.  A Graduate Council member serving in this capacity shall be recused from the Graduate Council deliberations of the appeal.
     
2. The hearings will be confidential and limited to the principals (student, Senate member selected by the student, graduate student selected by the student, and instructor or department representative or relevant administrator), and members of the Graduate Council (but see 3 and 5 below).
3. By prior arrangement, witnesses may be interviewed as part of the hearing process.
4. All witnesses other than the student and the instructor (or department representative or other relevant administrator) shall be excluded from the hearing except when testifying.
5. Evidence may be oral or written, but must be limited to issues raised in the original written complaint. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, and evidence shall be admitted if of the type upon which reasonable people are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The Graduate Council may, in its discretion, exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitive evidence. At its discretion the Graduate Council may agree to hear closing arguments (either oral or written at the Council’s discretion) as to the correct resolution of the matter.  If the Council determines to allow written closing arguments, the hearing process shall be deemed complete upon the parties’ submission of their written arguments to the Council.
6. The meeting shall be audio recorded, or, at the option of the student, a stenographer may be provided at the student’s expense. The student shall have access to a copy of the audio recording and may copy the audio recording at their own expense. All records pertaining to the hearing shall be kept by the Graduate Council for a period of three years. Student records shall be retained beyond that time if there is an outstanding request by a principal party to the review to inspect them.
7. The Graduate Council will reach its finding subsequent to completion of the hearing.  The deliberations of the Graduate Council shall be in private.  The Graduate Council shall submit a written finding including an explanation for the basis of it to the Graduate Dean within ten (10) working days of the date of completion of the hearing process.
8. Consistent with Senate authority and informed by the finding of the Graduate Council, the Graduate Dean will make the final decision on all cases involving academic notice and dismissal. The Graduate Council will have final decision-making authority in all other cases. In either case, the decision must be made within ten (10) working days of the receipt of the Graduate Council finding. Grade changes mandated by the Graduate Council are limited to Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory/Withdraw. (CC 1 Sep 24)
9. The Graduate Dean will have the administrative responsibility to implement the elements of the final decisions from Step 8 and to ensure that the instructor involved and/or department abide by the terms of the final resolution of the appeal.  In addition the Graduate Dean will take reasonable steps to ensure that the student is not subject to any form of retaliation and is further restored to good standing with the department if so determined by the decision of the review.  This may include the provision of lost wages or fellowship funds if so determined by the decision of the review.

Financial Support

Financial support will continue for the student for the term in which the appeal is submitted.  Support beyond this term will be contingent upon approval of the department and the Graduate Dean, and determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ramifications of Appeal Process

At all stages of the appeal process, a faculty member may request that their name be removed from the course in the final academic transcript.

No punitive actions may be taken against the instructor on the basis of these procedures.  Neither the filing of an appeal by a student nor the final disposition of the appeal shall, under any circumstances, become a part of the personnel file of the instructor.  The use of non-academic criteria in assigning a grade is a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct.  Sanctions against an instructor for violation of the Faculty Code may be sought by filing a complaint in accordance with CAPPM 002.015 or the relevant collective bargaining agreement.  A complaint may be filed by the student or by others consistent with CAPPM 002.015.

No punitive action may be taken against the complainant on the basis of these procedures.  Neither the filing of an appeal by a student nor the final disposition of the appeal shall, under any circumstances, become a part of the complainant’s file.  The instructor may, if they feel that their record has been impugned by false and malicious allegations, file charges against the complainant through the Office of Campus Life and Dean of Students. (CC 31 Aug 15; EC 31 Aug 16)