The Faculty Senate expressed mixed support Tuesday for a Student Senate resolution to include students in the grade appeals process.

Ronnie Deedrick, student vice president for academic affairs, presented his proposal, which the Student Senate unanimously approved two weeks ago, to the Faculty Senate for a second time at Tuesday’s meeting.

After his last visit, Deedrick had added some Faculty Senate-suggested provisions to the resolution and was looking for the senate’s support.

The current Internal Governing Policies call for the student vice president for academic affairs or the chairperson of the Graduate School Advisory Committee to serve as a counsel to students appealing grades at the department level.

Deedrick’s resolution asks for an additional student to be appointed by the student in his office or the GSAC chair, in consultation with the department chair, to serve as a voting member on department grade appeal committees.

The policy has not been revised since 1993, and there is no university standard for the make up of each department’s grade appeals committee, but a majority are comprised of only faculty.

“(The committees) have to have students on there to have neutrality,” Deedrick said.

Reed Benedict, professor of sociology and anthropology, said he clearly supports student involvement in the grade appeals process. A student’s vote validates the process, he said, and vote is not intended to be an evaluation of a professor’s objective view.

Other Faculty Senate members, such as Matthew Monippallil, professor of accountancy and finance, said the people most competent in making decisions regarding grade changes are the faculty and department chairs, not students.

“This will be the first instance of peer grading at this institution if we allow it,” Monippallil said.

David Carpenter, professor of English, said the resolution’s language makes it impossible to approve and he suggested the Faculty Senate put the item on a ballot for the entire faculty to vote on in the spring.

Carpenter also had concerns with Deedrick or the chairperson of the graduate student advisory committee choosing the voting student.

“This is not neutrality – it’s implicitly a conflict of interest,” Carpenter said.

The resolution is all about being fair and balanced, Deedrick said.

Steve Scher, professor of psychology, agreed that a student’s vote would bring an element of fairness to a grade appeals committee.

“We’re not talking about having students grade their own papers,” Scher said. “We’re grasping students to make judgments about fairness.”

Deedrick will present the resolution to the Council on Academic Affairs next in search of approval.

The Faculty Senate made a motion to offer an amendment to the resolution, but decided to solicit input from colleagues in the meantime.

Next week, the Faculty Senate will discuss the function and purpose of the Council on University Planning and Budget with CUPB chair Bob Augustine.