The Academic Policies Committee finally has come to a ruling on the matter of proselytizing in service learning projects after three rounds of discourse.

The APC came to an 8-2 ruling in favor of the ban, approving the current language used in the service learning guidelines. The issue now moves to the second half of the shared governance system, University Senate. Upon approval or rejection, Chancellor Donald Mash has the executive ability to approve or reject the ban himself.

Student Senate also has weighed in on the issue. After two hours of what Senate President Chad Wade described as a “spirited debate,” the ruling was passed in favor by a vote of 17-8-1. While Student Senate’s ruling plays no official role in the outcome, it should hold weight in affecting how University Senate members vote on the issue, Kent Syverson said.

With a lack of “spirited debate” when Syverson opened the APC board to discussion, board member Susan McIntyre made an immediate call for a vote.

Only Bobby Pitts objected to that motion, offering a proposed change to the ban’s language that would allow the service learning department to potentially accept proselytizing service learning projects on a case to case basis, but would also allow an escape from legal suits with the wording:

“Approval of a service learning project in no way implies university endorsement of the activities conducted or views expressed during the accomplishment of the service learning project.”

Pitt’s proposal was soundly rejected.

After coming to the ruling – Syverson and Pitts were the only board members to vote against it – discussion diverted to communication failure that was an underlying factor from the beginning. Several board members, namely Steve Tallant, argued that the ruling should not have been within the jurisdiction of the board.

“We’ve been asked to interpret constitutional law,” Tallant said. “We are not a judicial body, but we have gotten into the judicial branch.

“I’m not convinced it had to come forward. There is nothing that says APC is responsible for this matter.”

Others agreed, with many arguing the responsibility of ruling on the matter should have shifted to the lawyers who represent the university.

“The Constitution is open to interpretation,” Wade said. “If anything, that makes the case for why this body shouldn’t be deciding this, because we’re not all constitutional scholars. We can read, but we haven’t gone to law school.”

Pitts was the lone objector.

He argued that matters on the issue, nuances or not, should be approved or rejected by the board.

“This was conceived on campus,” he said. “It’s our problem, and it needs to go through shared governance. Bottom line.”

The lack of communication reached beyond confusion within the shared governance system.

Immediately after voting, board member Jack Bushnell discovered he was completely naive to the fact Service Learning Director Donald Mowry and his department had been enforcing the ban without official approval from necessary university bodies for two years prior to the ruling.

His revelation came despite repeated references to the error, not only by Mowry in front of the board, but also in a front page Spectator article that appeared Oct. 14.

“That was embarrassing,” senior Jordan Spina said. “How can you not know that and vote on the issue?”

The word proselytizing, which has gone from being an unknown term to being common knowledge over the course of these three meetings, may be given a brief rest in the public forum.

The issue won’t be brought forth to University Senate until Nov. 9 in the Tamarack Room of Davies Center from 3-5 p.m.