NCAA enforcers prevent UO sprinter from enjoying the fruits of her speed

It seems there’s a UO policy that limits when faculty can assign course incompletes – the work has to be incomplete, but not too incomplete. It’s the job of UO’s well-paid Faculty Athletics Representative Tim Gleason to enforce these sorts of rules for our unpaid “student-athletes”. So they pulled Jasmine Todd out of the starting blocks, This will hurt her future pro career, but while the NCAA is all about paying people like Gleason (from the academic budget) they couldn’t care less about the athletes. Ken Goe has the story here.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to NCAA enforcers prevent UO sprinter from enjoying the fruits of her speed

  1. Policy Prowler says:

    Uhhhh. Here is the “policy” (or something from the Registrar’s Office purporting to be a policy):

    Oh, wait! Here is the actual legislation adopted by the University Senate on November 10, 2004:

    And here is the legislative history page, which says the version passed that day is “authoritative”: .

    There was a one-year transitional provision adopted a couple of months later, but it didn’t change the basic policy:

    So what about this “provision” in the Registrar’s version of the “policy”? “An incomplete may be issued when the quality of work is satisfactory, but some minor yet essential requirement has not been completed, for reasons acceptable to the instructor. Faculty and students should develop a contract outlining the requirements and specific deadlines for making up the incomplete. Contracts should be filed in the departmental office through which the course is taught.”

    That doesn’t appear to be in the policy at all.

    The “Flo Track” story, linked from the Oregonian story, says this: “Unbeknownst to her, Todd’s grade was considered invalid, as the professor’s agreement was “against university policy.” But it took eight weeks for this news to reach Todd and her coaches. ”

    Is there more to this? Was she properly disqualified? Does this have an effect on her career? Can she file a lawsuit? Or is the University in the right about this?

    • uomatters says:

      Thanks, Prowler. AVP Chuck Triplett has been working on his policy website for 2 years now, but it’s still a mess, and doesn’t include some of the most important academic policies. Too bad a student got caught up in the chaos.

      • anon says:

        Academic policies are owned by the Senate. Too bad a student got caught up in the chaos of the Senate webpage. If you are a student, good luck finding which Senate policies apply to you – especially if they were passed prior to 2010. Maybe the student can sue the Senate.

        • uomatters says:

          At least the Senate webpage has a history that you can Google. For Triplett’s policies, you’ll need the wayback machine.

    • anonymous says:

      According to the legislative history link, the language on the Registrar’s website comes from the policy that was in effect before the 2004 legislation (see “Current Policy” under the “Background to the Motion” heading).

      The 2004 legislation amends the part of the then-existing policy that states how long Incompletes can stay on a record; and it adds a provision for appeals. The 2004 legislation does not redefine an Incomplete or say anything about the circumstances when it can be assigned. So wouldn’t the previous policy still apply on those matters?

      • Policy Prowler says:

        Dear “anonymous” and others:

        No, the 1978 version of the policy did not have anything about the circumstances under which a grade of incomplete can be assigned (such as that an incomplete can only cover “minor” requirements).

        No, in any event, the 2004 legislation did not “amend” a “part” of a 1978 policy. It replaced it. And therefore replaced the 1950 policy. And whatever came before that.

        Here’s why. The minutes of the Undergraduate Council in April 2004 clearly stated that the motion would “Implement a new Incomplete Policy.” It says that twice. It does not say the motion would “amend” just part of the policy. The 2004 policy was proposed as a “new” policy.

        When the motion came to the Senate, it came as a motion for a “change in University policy” governing the mark of Incomplete for undergraduates. The suggestion that it was only an amendment cannot be found in that motion.

        The agenda for the November 10, 2004, Senate meeting characterized the motion as one “regarding the handling of incomplete grades” — not one regarding just part of the handling of incomplete grades.

        The minutes of the November 10, 2004, report no discussion of this as an amendment. At one point the minutes say, ” There was further discussion that some faculty members do not fully understand the current incomplete grade policy, and some sentiment that the proposed motion was more streamlined and easier to understand.” This statement that the proposed motion is “more streamlined and easier to understand” than the “current incomplete grade policy” indicates a replacement, not an amendment.

        What was the 1978 policy? Well, it turns out that the language in 1978 did not include anything about the circumstances in which an incomplete can be assigned (for example, only a failure to complete a “minor but essential requirement”). The 1978 action was taken in March 1978.

        The minutes include this:

        March 1, 1978

        “Mr. Wi U iam Lamon was recognized to present the following motion: “That the legislation of April 5, T950, be amended as follows:……”

        “(The legislation as approved is attached as Appendix A.)…….


        “To remove an incomplete, a student must complete the course within his/her next four terms of residence in the University, but no later than three calendar years after the conclusion of the course for which the incomplete was awarded, or at such earlier date as the instructor, dean or department head may speci ~ does not apply to incompletes assigned pending completion of research Projects, theses, or terminal Rrojects. Accompanying each mark of ‘I’ there shall be filed with the department, college or school by the instructor, a statement setting forth the conditions under whict the ‘I’ may be removed. This amendment to become effectiv-e beginning with…..”

        There is nothing from 1978 indicating that the policy on incompletes included language about “minor but essential requirement.”

        So what about the legislation of April 5, 1950? The minutes of the “Regular Meeting of the Faculty” for that date are at page 862 of the scanned minutes here:

        REMOVAL OF INCOMPLETES. Mr. C.F. Weigle, chairman of the special Committee for the Study of Academic Regulations, moved that the University regulation that “an Incomplete must be removed within one calendar year after receipt of the mark” be amended to read: “To remove an Incomplete, a student must complete the course within his next three terms of residence in the University, or at such earlier date as the instructor may specify.” One amendment was made before passage, specifying that the earlier date should be “as the instructor, dean, or department head may specify.”

        There was nothing done in 1950 that involved the words “minor but essential requirement.” So if the words existed, they would have to be in the University’s regulations prior to 1950. But where?

        It seems to me that, in the absence of finding the University’s pre-1950 academic regulations, the statement on the Registrar’s website needs to be deleted. Why? Because this is a matter for faculty governance, not one for policy-making by an office of the Administration.

        And this raises the question again: on what basis was Jasmine Todd pulled out of the starting blocks at the NCAA track meet? Where is the supposed university policy that her instructor violated? Was it adopted by the faculty prior to 1950? Even if so, did it survive the 2004 rewrite of the policy on incompletes? Who pulled Jasmine out of the starting blocks? Is the University responsible to economic harm to her career?

  2. What impact is this having on UOM? says:

    [Not really a comment on this entry but a general one for UOM. Use as you see fit.]

    On June 9 Kevin Reed sent an email to Senators that included:

    “I appreciate your clarification, but will note that I think you have a normal reaction to the confusion created by Bill the blogger becoming Bill the Senate President. I assume this sort of confusion is why, when Bill stood for election as Senate VP, he suggested he may need to put the blog on hiatus.
    . . .

    “. . .when Bill in the note originating this chain sought to notify the senators of the chance to engage with a finalist in the ombuds search, he did not provide a link to the president’s page where the notice is posted, or the Around the O link describing the visit, but provided a link to UOMatters. It may seem a minor point, but it is actually a pretty fundamental question for us all, when we are trying to understand if we are working, under shared governance, with an important university leader, or whether we are engaging with the voice behind UOMatters. Since arriving here, I have been a strong protector of Bill’s right to post as he sees fit (while being very clear that he, and not the university, is responsible for what he posts). I worry that both the university/senate’s interests and Bill’s academic freedom could be impinged if we aren’t very clear about when Bill speaks for himself, and when he speaks as an officer of the Senate with shared leadership of this institution.

    “This is not an issue that the administration can resolve, but it is one that I believe University Senators should be thinking about, so I hope you will forgive the forwardness of my “replying all” in this chain on this point.

    “All that said, I look forward to working with the Senate on this and many other issues in the year to come.”

    • uomatters says:

      One way to read this email from our new General Counsel Kevin Reed is that he wants to renew the defamatory attack on the UO Senate that his predecessor Randy Geller began, on drugs:

      Another read is that he’s pursuing Scott Coltrane and Chuck Triplett’s dream that the Senate will censure me over my public records efforts:

      But it’s summer in Oregon, and I plan to enjoy it and deal with this crap in the fall.

      • UOYodeler says:

        Well Bill, I think it boils down to a simple question. Which is the UO website, and which is yours? I.E. which do you add an individual benefit financially and perception wise from getting more traffic?

        • uomatters says:

          In a good month UO Matters Google ads bring in enough to cover the cost of web hosting, swag for funny/informed commenters, and Akismet filtering for lame trolls like yourself.

    • just different says:

      Although (or perhaps because) I don’t have a horse in this race, I feel compelled to observe that Bill probably did not have an ulterior motive in linking to UOM–he was just trying to give the most complete and concise background info available–and Reed probably did not have an ulterior motive in correctly noting that it would have been more appropriate to link directly to the institutional pages, although it was ill-considered for him to “reply all.” I hope that a couple of minor but probably well-meaning lapses in judgment doesn’t escalate into renewing all the bad blood that should be put behind.