The University of Minnesota’s Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost is working to implement a new Academic Restoration Policy to provide more flexibility in paths to graduation.

The policy will go into effect once it is approved by the University Senate and the President’s Policy Committee, according to the Office of Undergraduate Education (OUE). The policy is on the University Senate’s April 27 agenda.

The current proposal would allow degree-seeking students who faced academic difficulty to return to the University with a viable path to a degree after five years away. The University does not currently have an academic restoration policy.

If a student receives academic restoration, their GPA would exclude D and F grades earned during a time period of one year. This would allow students who previously faced academic difficulty the opportunity to earn a degree, according to the policy.

Academic restoration works in tandem with two existing practices: course repeat and retroactive withdrawal. Course repeat allows students who repeat a course to only count their most enrollment in their GPA, while retroactive withdrawal allows students to withdraw from a class past the deadline due to extenuating circumstances, according to the OUE.

“Academic restoration is intended to fill a potential gap between these two practices,” the OUE said in an email to the Minnesota Daily. “When students in these circumstances wish to re-enroll without extenuating circumstances, and repeating courses is not a viable strategy, neither of the existing practices facilitate their return. Academic restoration would provide a pathway to a U of M degree.”

Along with being away from the University for five years, students must also complete a minimum of 12 A-F credits with a GPA of 2.5 or higher to be eligible for readmission into their intended college to receive academic restoration, according to the policy.

Katie Russell, associate director for the OUE, said there have been people interested in a policy like academic restoration for many years.

“We went into the pandemic, and I think we saw students struggle in ways that we never had before, and I think that has given a lot of support to this type of policy,” Russell said. “The need for this type of policy has been there for a long time, and the need might be greater now.”

Russell said the policy was created by reviewing similar policies at several other universities, along with consultation with undergraduate associate deans, the Student Academic Integrity Committee, the Student Senate Consultative Committee and others.

Senate Committee on Educational Policy debates policy’s details

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) consists of 12 faculty members and six students who review and make recommendations for revision concerning educational policy.

SCEP first discussed the Academic Restoration Policy in December 2022 to give feedback to OUE and the provost’s office, according to Thomas Chase, the chair of SCEP and a mechanical engineering professor.

Chase said he believes the policy opens up a new channel for students to return and sees it as a meaningful opportunity for students to return.

Some SCEP members raised concerns about the policy requiring students to be away from the University for at least five years and requiring a minimum 2.5 GPA to be eligible for academic restoration, according to Matthew Croft, a student on SCEP.

Croft said he believes five years is too long to require because it suggests in order to be successful when they return, students need to leave the University for several years to facilitate personal growth. Croft said he believes the policy should have no waiting period, and if it does, it should only be one year away from the University.

“The kind of environment that a student goes to after you kick them out of the University is not better than the University’s environment for personal growth,” Croft said. “If it is better, then the University is not doing their jobs and should be focusing on that.”

Jennifer Row, a SCEP member and professor in the College of Liberal Arts, also said she does not support the policy requiring students to be away from the University for at least five years.

“The student is made to feel defective and stigmatized by having to go away from the University for five years, which is a very arbitrary length of time,” Row said. “It lays the fault in the student that has to go away and not at the fault in our system.”

The OUE said the majority of similar policies reviewed at other institutions had a four- to five-year time frame.

“In order to maintain the integrity of the academic record, it is important to distinguish academic restoration from existing practices, like retroactive withdrawal, and the time away is part of that distinction,” the OUE said in an email to the Daily.

Chase said he agrees with the five-year time period because the policy is aimed at students returning to the University as an “entirely different person,” and it is important in differentiating academic restoration from normal suspension policies.

In addition to not agreeing with the five-year minimum, Croft said he also does not agree with the 2.5 GPA requirement since students at the University are normally required to maintain a GPA of 2.0 or higher to be considered in good academic standing.

“This is not something that we should constrain so narrowly, and it should be an opportunity that is more broadly applicable without putting additional burdens on students,” Croft said.

The OUE said the intent of the 12 credits and 2.5 GPA requirement is to ensure students are prepared to return to the University and successfully complete degree requirements.

Office of Undergraduate Education says policy received student support

The OUE said SCEP gave them feedback to have a broader consultation with students on the policy proposal. They consulted with the Student Senate Committee (SSC) and Student Academic Integrity Committee, who they said were supportive of the policy.

“We met with a wide range of people who have seen students returning from a time away to inform us about this policy,” Russell said.

Croft said despite meeting with the SSC, administrators did not seek feedback from students who would benefit from this policy.

“I’m a student who would benefit from this policy because I was a return dropout, and I went through this policy and I don’t like it,” Croft said. “If the people you are allegedly trying to serve are telling you that this is bad, you should maybe listen to them.”

Russell said it is likely students who have been away from the University for five years will not know about academic restoration, and students who wish to return after that time will probably learn about the policy from an academic advisor.